JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral):- Order dated 15.4.2013 of the lower Court whereby amendment of written statement sought by the petitioner-defendant was declined, is under challenge. 2. It is claimed that the learned lower Court not only failed to take into account material aspects of the case but also did not consider the fact that amendment of written statement has different scope whereas amendment to the plaint is distinct. It is urged that the amendment sought goes to the root of the matter under adjudication and is required for effective and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It is canvassed that the pleadings are required to be wholesome and thus amendment is necessary. 3. Perusal of the paper-book reveals that the defendant by way of filing the application, had sought to amend the written statement so as to incorporate pleas under Order XXIII, Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC, to claim that the suit was barred. 4. Hearing has been provided. 5. In addition to the present suit which was filed on 27.10.2009, there was yet another suit in respect of the same land which had earlier been filed by plaintiff Satish Kumar, wherein the defendants had taken a stand that there was no partition of the land and consequently suit filed earlier by Satish Kumar was withdrawn by him. 6. During pendency of the suit titled Satish Kumar Versus Ram Niwas and ors., the present suit was instituted. Thus clearly Order XXIII CPC is not applicable. 7. So far as question of resjudicata under Section 11 CPC is concerned, it is also not applicable as earlier suit was not decided on merits; rather it was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC. Even provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not become applicable. Consequently, the amendment sought by the petitioner is neither helpful either to him or to the Court for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. Except for a cause to delay the proceedings of the case, no help would come in the way of the defendants. 8. When the entire matter is looked into in the interface of attending facts and circumstances, it becomes evident that neither Order XXIII nor Order II Rule 2 nor even Section 11 CPC applies in this case. Except for a cause to delay the proceedings of the case, no help would come in the way of the defendants. 8. When the entire matter is looked into in the interface of attending facts and circumstances, it becomes evident that neither Order XXIII nor Order II Rule 2 nor even Section 11 CPC applies in this case. Even parties to the earlier suit and the present one are not the same. The earlier suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat. The present suit however was instituted on 27.10.2009 clearly showing that the present suit was instituted during the pendency of the earlier suit. 9. Thus when the amendment sought for no where advances the cause of justice or would be helpful to the Court for proper adjudication of the matter, it lacks bonafide and legitimacy. The lower Court was right in returning findings that malafide, worthless and dishonest amendments are not to be allowed as these are neither required nor would help in any way for adjudiction of the matter in controversy. Consequently these pleas are not required to be incorporated in the written statement. 10. Rather the stage and circumstance in which the application has been filed, speaks volumes of the conduct and intention of the defendants. Suit is fixed for production of evidence in rebuttal by the plaintiff and for final arguments. Moving of application by the defendants at this stage particularly when there is neither any urgency nor any such material is sought to be brought on record which was not in the knowledge of the defendants, is nothing but a contrivance to delay and dilate the matter. As such the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. The present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. ---------0.B.S.0------------