JUDGMENT : 1. This Court had issued notice of final disposal. 2. Hence Rule. Heard by consent. 3. Petitioners' application for amendment of Written Statement in answer to the Counter-claim has been rejected. Petitioners challenge the said order in the present petition. 4. By the amendment proposed, petitioners are inducting a plea that they being tenants of agricultural land, defendants' counter-claim for a decree of delivery of possession is not maintainable. The plea now being brought into the Written Statement relates to a jurisdictional fact. Under Section 124 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act [Vidarbha Region], the Civil Court cannot entertain and decree a suit for delivery of possession of agricultural land held by a tenant. 5. Prayer for amendment is opposed on the grounds that :- [a] it will delay the disposal of suit, [b] amendment will call for an issue of tenancy which will have to be referred to Tenancy Tribunal and this will indefinitely delay the trial, and [c] no amendment ought to be allowed when trial commences. 6. The petitioners have relied upon the the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Baldev Singh & ors. Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh & anr. [2006 [5] Mh. L.J. [SC] 634], and the Judgment of this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (1) Mh. L.J. 331]. 7. Learned Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & ors. [ AIR 2007 SC 806 ]. 8. What is being brought to the notice of Court through the amendment in the Written Statement is a fact of statutory status of tenancy. 9. It is pertinent to note that once this fact i.e. of tenancy of agricultural land, comes to the knowledge of Court either by production of evidence, or through a pleading duly supported by evidence, the question of tenancy is required to be decided by reference of said issue to the Tenancy Tribunal. 10. The plaintiffs' application for amendment and objection thereto will have to be decided in the light of the content of amendment, and the effect of delay will have to be examined. 11. 10. The plaintiffs' application for amendment and objection thereto will have to be decided in the light of the content of amendment, and the effect of delay will have to be examined. 11. In the present case, in a suit of the year 2003, after the issues were framed and evidence on affidavit of the plaintiffs was filed, the application for amendment has been filed on 28th August, 2007. The cross-examination was not commenced. 12. It is open for the plaintiffs to have the affidavit supplemented by additional affidavit in the light of amendment. Inconvenience, if any, suffered by the plaintiffs can be compensated by payment of costs. 13. Finding a golden mean, this Court reaches a conclusion that present being an amendment of Written Statement, it will have to be dealt with liberally in contrast with a prayer for amendment of plaint. 14. However, since the content of the amendment sought, relates to the very factum of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and in past, such prayer is entertained by this Court and even by Apex Court even at the second appellate stage, it has to be considered that the point being one of jurisdiction could be raised even in execution proceeding. Therefore, and nothing precludes such amendment being allowed at this stage. 15. In this background, amendment is sought in order to incorporate such a plea, which pertains to ouster of jurisdiction. It is urged that prayer for amendment needs to be allowed notwithstanding the fact that it is being sought at belated stage. 16. In the given situation, discussion on the precedents cited is not necessary. 17. In the result, petition succeeds. Hence this Court passes the following order: A. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause [1] of the petition. B. The application for amendment filed by petitioners is allowed on the condition that the petitioners pay to the defendants by depositing in the Trial Court costs in a sum of Rs.5,000-00 [rupees five thousand only] with liberty to the defendants to withdraw the same.