JUDGMENT Heard at length on admission. Learned trial Court vide impugned order allowed non-applicant plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint and also allowed application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC granting leave to produce documents which are copies of the demand notice, registered A.D., and rent receipts issued by previous landlord. This combined impugned order has been challenged in this petition under section 115, CPC. The order under challenge has been assai led on the ground that the amendment could not have been allowed as the proposed amendment does not provide statutory ground under section 12(1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as the pleadings did not fulfill statutory requirements u/s 12( 1) (a) of the Act, and therefore the ground was not available. It is also assailed on the ground that there has been a delay of about eight years in bringing the amendment and thirdly that it is likely to prejudice the interest of the defendant. Having heard the learned counsel on the two sides, there appears no substance in the petition. The merits of the proposed amendment can't be looked into at this stage. If the pleadings lack statutory requirement affording ground for eviction u/s 12(1) (a) of the Act, the plaintiff will suffer the consequences but on that ground alone the amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused. The plaint initially also revealed that defendants were in arrears of rent and that fact was denied by defendants in their statement and further stating that the plaintiffs have not served any notice of eviction for arrears of rent, etc. In this connection, it has been stated in the proposed amendment that in fact notice was sent by earlier counsel who thereafter was ailing for about an year and ultimately died. It was also stated that the copy of the notice, Registered A.D. and rent receipts were lying with the said counsel and therefore in the peculiar circumstances pleadings to that effect were not made at the initial stage and after these papers were collected the pleadings were sought to be amended by the proposed amendment and the documents were filed seeking leave of the Court to be taken on record. In this view of the matter, explanation tendered by the plaintiff cannot be termed as after-thought or mala fide but in the circumstances it appears quite genuine and bona fide. In this view of the matter, explanation tendered by the plaintiff cannot be termed as after-thought or mala fide but in the circumstances it appears quite genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the proposed amendment could not have been denied even on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, delay alone cannot be a ground for refusal of amendment if it was necessary for fair and proper decision in the case because the delay could be compensated in terms of cost. So is the case with filing of, documents which were in the possession of the late Advocate. It is not the case of the defendant that documents are not genuine or that they have deliberately been withheld. The documents undisputedly are very relevant for proper decision of the case and therefore, learned trial Court no where erred in allowing the two petitions. The revision petition having no substance is dismissed summarily and the orders passed earlier staying the proceedings in the Court below are vacated. MCP 1058/2001, MCP 486/2000, MCP 816/2000, MCP 722/2000 are disposed of accordingly. However, the learned trial Court will give proper liberty to the defendant to bring consequential amendment. ·