JUDGMENT : 1. The decree-holder complains of the first appellate court allowing amendment applications for the mere asking that would invariably result in the matter being remanded and the petitioner being seriously prejudiced. 2. The petitioner obtained an eviction decree, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement. At the appellate stage, the opposite parties claimed that the petitioner was in possession of certain additional space. The appellate court allowed the application with the observation that courts should be lenient and accept amendments rather than disallow them. The rule, perhaps, is not so charitable at the appellate stage. By virtue of the proviso to amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, an amendment application at a belated stage needs to pass a very strict test. The rule envisaged in the proviso applies with greater strictness in the appellate stage. 3. The second application filed was on the ground that the suit premises might be a thika property. It is the admitted position that the issue was raised in course of the original trial and decided against the opposite parties. The opposite parties, however, say that a key document was not available at the time of the trial and the amendment application on the thika aspect was necessitated at the appellate stage to rely on such document. 4. The petitioner says that both matters could have been attempted to be incorporated by way of an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code instead of by way of amendment applications. The petitioner apprehends, and rightly so, that the appellate court may have chosen to allow the applications so that it becomes more convenient to send the matter down on remand rather than decide the matter. 5. Applications for the amendment of pleadings, even though permissible at the appellate stage, should not be allowed for the mere asking. It will, then, be open to every judgment-debtor having suffered an eviction decree on the ground of reasonable requirement to make some allegations and incorporate the same in the written statement for the appeal to be disposed of by an order of remand and the matter to go back to the trial court. Litigants and their agents now use disingenuous ploys in every untruthful way possible to deny rights. Litigants and their agents now use disingenuous ploys in every untruthful way possible to deny rights. Since it takes several years for a suit to ripen for trial, once a judgment-debtor having suffered a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement is able to push an application for amendment through at the appellate stage, the matter is set back by years. 6. It is necessary, in the circumstances, that the order impugned dated April 5, 2017 passed in Ejectment Appeal No. 10 of 2015 be set aside and the opposite parties be left free to pursue the same matters by way of an application under XLI Rule 27 of the Code. 7. CO 1971 of 2017 is allowed as above. 8. There will be no order as to costs.