JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 1. Order impugned dated 4th October, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 104 of 1994 rejecting the prayer for amendment on fifth occasion is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that the suit was instituted in 1994 claiming that the schedule properties in the plaint are owned by them as joint properties held jointly with the opposite parties. The plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for permanent injunction so that the defendants/opposite parties cannot dispossess the plaintiffs from the properties in question. They have also prayed for costs and/or any order or for further reliefs. 3. In the plaint schedule of properties was described total area of land as claimed by the plaintiffs is 109 decimals. Mr. Gupta submitted that the plaintiffs/petitioners moved the application for amendment to remove some mistakes but unfortunately, learned court below did not allow such amendment. Mr. Gupta submitted that learned court below was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs/petitioners ought to have shown their due diligence since they are making this application for amendment after completion of trial by both sides and also argument completed on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties. Mr. Gupta submitted that proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 is not applicable in the instant case since the suit is of 1994. He further submitted that there are catena of decisions to that effect and according to him, learned Judge has gone wrong to conclude on the basis of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17. Mr. Gupta then submitted that merely because the suit is at argument stage or crossed period of 19 years cannot be a ground of rejection of such prayer. 4. Mr. Gupta submitted whether the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit are to be looked at. He submits that the learned court below is wrong in its conclusion that amendment if allowed, would change the nature and character of the suit. He also submits that the learned court below ought to have taken liberal approach in cases where such type of prayers are made. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the provisions under Order 6, Rule 17 are legislated for minimising the litigation. He also submits that the learned court below ought to have taken liberal approach in cases where such type of prayers are made. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the provisions under Order 6, Rule 17 are legislated for minimising the litigation. He submits in case amendments are not allowed, then further litigation would be invited and there would be multiplicity of proceedings. He submitted that the learned court below did not apply its mind properly. Therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 5. Mr. Ganguly, appearing for the State submits that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned court below. Learned court below has considered all the aspects of the matter. The learned court below has recorded that this is the fifth application for amendment, previously four applications for amendment were allowed. Mr. Ganguly further submits that by way of amendment some new pleas are being brought in at a time when the suit is at the concluding stage and that too after about 19 years from the date of filing the suit. Mr. Ganguly further submits that the ground disclosed in the application for amendment is that mistakes were detected by the learned advocate at the time of consideration of the documents for preparing him to argue his clients' case. He submits that this plea is not at all reliable and acceptable. Mr. Ganguly pointed out by seeking such amendment the plaintiffs/petitioners are trying to bring something new in the plain which will in effect change the nature and character of the suit. 6. Mr. Ganguly further submits that there is nothing wrong in the finding of the learned court below to that effect thereafter completion of trial and completion of argument on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs have become wiser to fill up the lacunae, they are now trying to bring amendment so that they can get success or defendants' case be frustrated. He submits that once an application for amendment is filed each and every court is to see that the justifiability of the prayer made for making such application. The amendment is not at all matter of right. He further submits that the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs/petitioners are on different set of facts which have no manner of application in the instant case. 7. The amendment is not at all matter of right. He further submits that the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs/petitioners are on different set of facts which have no manner of application in the instant case. 7. Considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, as well as the plaint and the fifth petition for amendment filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. The suit is of 1994 and the suit is pending for about 19 years, the plaintiffs/petitioners took out as many as fifth amendment application including the present one. By way of amendment the plaintiffs/petitioners wanted to incorporate something new which was not there. The plaintiffs/petitioners are trying to bring some persons in the suit who were not at all there. Genealogy of the defendants, who according to the plaintiffs/petitioners, are co-sharerers ought to have been in the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plea or the reasons for mistakes stated by the plaintiffs/petitioners are not acceptable nor even reliable. The suit has made a considerable progress. Trial of both sides is over. Argument of defendants is over. The plaintiffs/petitioners' argument is to be made. No reasonable ground is disclosed why these amendments could not be brought by the plaintiffs during this long period of 19 years. Learned court below came to a finding that the amendment of the plaint sought for being contradiction of the amendment allowed previously and as such there is no scope to allow this amendment application. It was also finding of the learned court below that although the plaintiffs have contended these are errors in typing but from scrutiny of record it reveals that these plaintiffs have regularly contradicted themselves in defining genealogy of the plaint through various averments made to the plaint during the course of the suit. It was also found by the learned court below that the defendants have already cross-examined the plaintiffs' witnesses on the point of contradiction in the plaintiffs' case as regards the genealogy of the plaintiffs. According to the learned court below allowing such amendment, when evidence on behalf of both sides have been closed and argument has already been concluded by one side in this suit, would tantamount to depriving the defendants of a good defence who could not be compensated by way of cost and, accordingly, defendants would be highly prejudiced. 8. According to the learned court below allowing such amendment, when evidence on behalf of both sides have been closed and argument has already been concluded by one side in this suit, would tantamount to depriving the defendants of a good defence who could not be compensated by way of cost and, accordingly, defendants would be highly prejudiced. 8. The learned court below also found that other amendments sought for relates to subject matter of the suit and any alteration of such a nature as claimed would tantamount to introducing new case, as the intention appears to be to catch the defendants' off-guard. It was also found by the learned court below that attempt of the plaintiffs is to drag the case for a longer period. It was further found that the plaintiffs have already amended the plaint four times during the course of the suit that the last one made as late as 9th December 2004 during the course of trial. The learned court below was not satisfied about the reasons for such belated application at the argument stage, as disclosed by the plaintiffs/petitioners, that their learned lawyer could identify the discrepancies while inspecting the records while preparing for argument. 9. All these findings of the learned court below have substance to be considered at the time of consideration of the application for amendment. Accordingly the present plea appears to be an afterthought ends squarely delay the trial and also off-guard the defendants. This court is not at all satisfied with the reasons disclosed in the application for amendment and also amendments sought for. 10. Therefore on consideration of the materials available on record it appears that the amendments which was brought in and sought to be re-amended once again by filing this application, in fact, are an effort of the plaintiffs/petitioners to take advantage and to cover the gap which has surfaced after conclusion of trial and also argument advanced by the defendants. Further this Court is also of the opinion that the amendment sought for would in effect change the nature and character of the suit which is not permissible in law. 11. This court is of the view that in such circumstances, learned court has rightly rejected the amendment application. There is no error in the order passed by the learned court below. Therefore, there is no merit in this revisional application. 11. This court is of the view that in such circumstances, learned court has rightly rejected the amendment application. There is no error in the order passed by the learned court below. Therefore, there is no merit in this revisional application. The revisional application is, thus, rejected. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Learned court below is directed to dispose of the suit within two months from the date of communication of this order. 14. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to communicate to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas saying the suit be disposed of as directed by this Court. 15. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties, if applied for. Application is dismissed.