S. K. SINGH, J. Pleadings between the parties is complete. As further proceeding in the appeal of the year 1985 has been stayed by this Court, with the consent of the parties the matter is being finally heard and decided. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order as was passed by the learned Special Judge dated 4-11- 1989 by which amendment applica tion as was moved by the petitioner in appeal was rejected. It appears that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for injunction and demolition of the construc tion in the year 1981. After filing the writ ten statement by the petitioner and after adducing full-fledged evidence from both sides the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 23-2-1985 partly decreed the suit against which the present petitioners who happened to be the defendants preferred appeal. During the pendency of the appeal amendment application was filed on 30th August, 1989 by which two para graph /. e. , 25-Aa and 25-Ba were sought to be added. By the aforesaid two paragraphs (i) plea of bar of the suit under Section 27 of the U. P. C. H. Act and (ii) dismissal of the suit on account of land being a non-iden tifiable, sought to be added. 3. After getting the objection from the plaintiff, the aforesaid amendment as prayed by the petitioners came to be rejected by the order of the Court below which has been impugned in this petition. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Court below has not at all applied its mind to the propriety and justifiability of the amendment as was sought by the petitioners and in fact the amendment application has been rejected on the sole ground that it appears to have been filed after long delay. 5. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that on the ground of delay only, amendment application could not be rejected by the Court below. Lastly, it has been submitted that the amendment as was prayed was in respect to the fact which was purely legal in nature and the argu ments could have been permitted to be advanced in the light of the evidence as has already come on the record by which no prejudice can be said to have been oc casioned to the plaintiff. 6. 6. In response to the aforesaid sub missions learned Counsel for the respon dents has submitted that there appears to be lack of bona fide in moving the amend ment application by the petitioners as the suit was filed in the year 1981 which was decreed in the year 1985 and this amend ment has been filed in the year 1989 which shows that the defendant has an intention to prolong the litigation and delay the disposal of the matter. 7. A reading of the order of the Court below shows that there is absolutely no application of mind in respect to the merits about the propriety in the amend ment application so sought by the petitioners. 8. The feasibility to the allowing of the amendment on the principle so settled in this respect has not been examined and no finding has been recorded in that respect rather on a technical approach of there being delay in moving amendment application, the same appears to have been rejected. 9. In my opinion, rejection of the amendment application solely on the ground of delay was not at all justified. It was obligatory on the part of the Court below to examine the feasibility of allow ing of the amendment in the light of the arguments as has been advanced in this respect on behalf of the petitioners which will be also placed before the Court below. In view of this the order as has been passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioners amendment application can not be maintained. 10. Accordingly this writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the respondent No. 1 dated 4-11-1989 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 1 to consider the amendment application of the petitioners afresh in the light of the discus sions made above. 11. As the matter is quite old, it is expected that the respondent No. 1 will take appropriate decision, within a period of three months from the date of produc tion of a certified copy of this order in respect to the amendment application as has been moved by the petitioner. 12. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .