ORDER M.F. Saldanha, J.--This CRP has been directed against an Order dated 19.8.2003 on IA.1/03 whereby the Court has rejected the Defendants application for amendment of the plaint. Though it may seem strange, the present Petitioner who is the Defendant made an application to the trial Court that the plaint should be amended by adding schedule 'D' to the list of properties. What is even more humerous is the fact that the Plaintiff is the brother of the Defendant and he had asked for 1/3rd share in the joint family properties. The list of properties to be partitioned has been set out in schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' and the present Petitioner before me who is the Defendant has applied to the Court that a house which has not been included in the schedules be added as schedule 'D' and that this property also should be partitioned. It is a little difficult for me to understand as to why the litigation has gone on for 16 years if the present Petitioner is not only agreeable to the partition but more importantly, wants even one more property to be included in the properties to be partitioned. 2. Regardless of that position, the trial Court has pointed out that this application was not made prior to the commencement of the trial when the pleadings were in their early stages. The suit is 16 years old, the evidence of the Plaintiff has been completed, cross-examination has been completed and the Court is now at the fag end of the trial with only the Defendants further evidence left. At this very late stage of the proceedings, the Defendant has made an application for amendment and that too, of the plaint filed by the other side. What aggravates the position is that the learned trial Judge has also pointed out that this contention has been taken up in the written statement and that therefore, there can be no question or necessity of even applying for any amendment and it is on this ground that the application itself has been characterised as frivolous and costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- have been awarded. 3. This is as far as the facts are concerned. The law on the point is well settled in so far as an amendment can be permitted provided it is bonafide, it is timely and more importantly, provided it does not disrupt the proceedings. 3. This is as far as the facts are concerned. The law on the point is well settled in so far as an amendment can be permitted provided it is bonafide, it is timely and more importantly, provided it does not disrupt the proceedings. In this case, the application does not satisfy any of these requirements. The Petitioner's learned Advocate has cited the following decisions: 1. Chintaparthi Venkataramana Reddy Vs. Nallam Rajamnia and Anr., AIR 1988 AP 40 2. Beni Shankar Sharma and Others Vs. Surya Kant Sharma and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1533 3. Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and Another Vs. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co. and Another, AIR 1964 SC 818 4. AIR 1976 Pat 76 (Indian Cable Company Limited v. The Union of India) 5. Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and Others Vs. Jaswantlal Zinabhai and Others, AIR 1966 SC 997 6. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 7. AIR 1955 Tri 29 (Smt. Rani Ujjvala Devi Vs. Kirit Bikram Dev Burman) 8. Sanatan Jena (after him) Nidu Dei and Others Vs. Babji Sahu, AIR 1990 Ori 186 9. Sardar Hari Bachan Singh Vs. Major S. Har Bhajan Singh and Another, AIR 1975 P & H 205 10. Shambhu Nath Seth Vs. Madan Lal and Another, AIR 1976 All 220 11. AIR 1953 Hyd 212 (Govardhan Bang and Joint Family of Kaniram Laxminarayan Vs. Government of The Union of India) 12. Percy F. Fisher Vs. Ardeshir Hormasji Gazdar, AIR 1935 Bom 213 13. AIR 1935 Pat 463 (G. Mckenzie and Co. (1919) Limited Vs. Tatanlal Surajamall) 4. I have considered the ratio laid down in these cases and what needs to be pointed out first of all is that the present case is distinguishable on facts. Secondly, while it is true that the basic proposition entitles the Court to permit an amendment at any stage and that there had been instances where an amendment has been allowed even at an appellate stage, those situations are exceptional and special where the overwhelming interest of justice permitted it. Secondly, while it is true that the basic proposition entitles the Court to permit an amendment at any stage and that there had been instances where an amendment has been allowed even at an appellate stage, those situations are exceptional and special where the overwhelming interest of justice permitted it. The position of the law as it is today envisages, particularly after the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, that there has got to be a total finality to each stage of a proceeding and that the Court will not permit any disruption of the normal sequence of a case and the sequeter therefore is that if an amendment application is made at a belated stage particularly after the evidence has been recorded or, as in most cases if the object of the amendment is to sabotage the proceedings and ensure that they do not conclude, the Courts will have to come down heavily and not only discourage such practices but ensure that they do not succeed. 5. I have already set out the timeframe and it has been recorded that the present suit is 16 years old, the evidence is practically complete, the application for amendment itself is totally devoid of substance or logic and in this background, the trial Court was fully justified in having dismissed the application with the award of exemplary costs. The sad position is that the Petitioner thereafter files the present revision application obviously in the hope that if the High Court were to so much as issue notice or admitted the CRP that the suit could be delayed for another 10 years. It is unfortunate that this has happened but the only option for this Court is to reject the CRP outright and in order to discourage tactics of this type, the interest of justice and public interest will also require that the CRP will have to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Normally, I would have been inclined to saddle the Petitioner with further costs but I have taken note of the fact that the lower Court has already passed an order to this effect and consequently, it is unnecessary to award another set of costs. The CRP accordingly fails and stands dismissed.