JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been placed on the board for orders on the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure for amendment in the plaint. 2. Plaintiff-appellants originally filed a suit on 20.08.1977 for perpetual injunction against defendants with a prayer that they may be restrained from dispossessing the appellants with a direction not to create any hindrance in the construction being raised by the plaintiff-appellants. After full-fledged trial, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Kota, vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008 dismissed the suit holding that the disputed land of Khasra No.17 is entered in the name of Indian Army and that the plaintiffs have encroached upon a part of the land of aforesaid Khasra. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota, who, vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned court below. 3. According to the plaintiffs-appellants, their predecessor-in-title Madan Lal had purchased plot in dispute from Panchayat, Khandgawadi vide allotment letter dated 22.06.1958. Madan Lal was put in possession of the land in dispute by Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, Madan Lal vide registered sale-deed dated 26.04.1971 sold that plot to Om Singh Jain, who obtained permission to raise construction from Municipal Board and thereafter he further sold the said plot to Smt. Chandra Bai vide registered sale-deed dated 14.03.1972 and thereafter Chandra Bai, vide registered sale-deed dated 12.07.1974 sold the same plot to the plaintiff-appellants. When the plaintiff-appellants constructed a two-storied house on the said land, a notice was issued to him by the defendant no.3 to vacate the premise in the year 1977, which is why he filed suit for injunction. 4. The plaintiff-appellants now in the present application sought amendment in the plaint to insert the plea of adverse possession asserting that they being in uninterrupted possession of the disputed property for more than twelve years, became owner and their title was perfected by virtue of adverse possession and a decree declaring them the owner of the disputed land be passed. 5. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, has submitted that the delay by itself may not be a reason to decline the amendment prayed for because other necessary pleadings as also evidence are already there. 5. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, has submitted that the delay by itself may not be a reason to decline the amendment prayed for because other necessary pleadings as also evidence are already there. It was due to aforesaid that in the original suit filed by them with the prayer of injunction. Possession of the plaintiffs was throughout was peaceful and continuous and hostile to every one including the respondents. The plaintiffs raised the construction in full knowledge of the defendant with the due permission of the Municipal Board. The defendants failed to take any action against the plaintiffs and for that reason, their predecessor in title for last more than twenty years. The title of the appellants was perfected by prescription and by virtue of adverse possession. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, in support of his arguments, cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Another, AIR 2002 SC 3369 and Gurdial Singh and Others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1003 and contended that the amendment as prayed for be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. Shri S.S. Raghav, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, contended that the present application seeking amendment in the plaint is highly belated, having been filed in the year 2012, whereas the suit was filed 20.08.1977 i.e. for about 36 years ago. Such amendment which merely seeks to fill in the lacunae in the case of the appellant but also highly belated. This amendment is going to change the very nature of the suit. Original suit was filed only for perpetual injunction whereas now if the amendment is allowed, this would convert the suit into one for declaration of title. The application for amendment should therefore be dismissed. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed the application for amendment only after the suit as well as the appeal have been dismissed. Thus filing of the application itself is not bona-fide. 7. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that the suit in present case was indeed filed on 20.08.1977, wherein prayer was made for grant of perpetual injunction. Decision of the suit has taken more than thirty years. Thus filing of the application itself is not bona-fide. 7. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that the suit in present case was indeed filed on 20.08.1977, wherein prayer was made for grant of perpetual injunction. Decision of the suit has taken more than thirty years. The learned trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008 and the appellate court affirmed the same vide its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011. The appellants have belatedly filed this application for amendment on 21.12.2011 i.e. 36 years after the date of filing of the suit and therefore the amendment application is highly belated. The application has been filed only after the suit was dismissed and thereafter the appeal there against was also dismissed. It was filed only with a view to filling in the lacunae. If the amendment as prayed for is allowed, it will indeed change the whole complexion of the suit and cause a grave injustice to the defendant-Indian Army, which is the owner of the land, a part of which it has allotted to the Central School. 8. The Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh, supra, observed that the court may allow or refuse the prayer for amendment in sound exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. It would, therefore, be better if the reasons persuading the applicant to seek an amendment in the pleadings as also the grounds explaining the delay, if there be any, in seeking the amendment, are stated in the application so that the opposite party has an opportunity of meeting such grounds and none is taken by surprise at the hearing on the application. In the present case, there is hardly any justification for the enormous delay and the application in this respect is conspicuously silent. Similarly, in Sampath Kumar, supra, the suit was originally filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against dispossession but the defendant was forcefully dispossessed by the plaintiff from the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. It was in that context that the plaintiff by amendment sought for relief of declaration of title to the suit property and consequential relief of delivery of possession. The facts herein are entirely different because the plaintiffs have not been dispossessed, from the disputed land after filing of suit, rather they claim to have constructed a house on the disputed land. 9. The facts herein are entirely different because the plaintiffs have not been dispossessed, from the disputed land after filing of suit, rather they claim to have constructed a house on the disputed land. 9. The judgments cited on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants are distinguishable and do not in any manner help the appellants. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain, AIR 1985 SC 817 , was rendered in entirely different fact situation wherein statutory exemption granted to new buildings seized during pendency of the suit. Amendment prayed for was allowed observing that this did not amount to constitute addition of a new cause of action or raise a new case but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record. In the present case the amendment prayed for would have the effect of changing the very nature of the suit. 11. The Supreme Court in a recently delivered judgment in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 , dealt with a case arising out of suit for specific performance of contract of sale of property. The specific averment that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, was not made in the plaint. The application for amendment of the plaint introduce such specific plea on the ground that it was made out by typing mistake. Application was filed after the arguments were completed and matter as posted for judgment. It was held by the Supreme court that omission of such vital plea amounts to lack of due diligence and cannot be regarded as mere typographical mistake. Affirming the order of the trial court and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that in deserving cases court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the opposite party by awarding costs, but it was not held to be one such a case. 12. The appellant is now, by amendment, seeking to set up an entirely new case founded on the adverse possession and claim title on that basis after enormous delay of thirty six years from the date of filing suit. However, the application of the appellant is devoid of any reason. And when the suit was originally filed seeking injunction, the prayer for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession was not made. 13. However, the application of the appellant is devoid of any reason. And when the suit was originally filed seeking injunction, the prayer for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession was not made. 13. In view of the above, the present application praying for amendment in the suit, at this belated stage, cannot be granted. The application is therefore dismissed.Application dismissed. *******