JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners; Sri A.P. Singh for the respondent 1/2 and perused the record. 2. A perusal of the record would go to show that the petitioners had instituted Original Suit No. 519 of 1992 for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 21st October, 1991 executed by Munesar, the father of plaintiff No. 1-Jokhu (petitioner No. 1 herein) and husband of plaintiff No. 2 Nagesari (petitioner No. 2 herein) on the ground that Munesar was an aged person and that the sale-deed was obtained from him by playing fraud. The suit was decreed by judgement and decree dated 11th February, 1997 against which the defendants filed civil appeal No. 62 of 1997, which is stated to be pending. It appears that in the civil appeal an argument was developed by the defendants that Munesar could not be an old and aged person, aged about 80 years, as claimed by the plaintiffs, because the plaintiff No. 2, who happens to be his wife/widow, has been shown to be aged 50 years and, therefore, Munesar could have been on or about the same age. Upon the argument so advanced, the petitioners applied for amendment in the plaint seeking to add certain facts in paragraph 2 of the plaint so as to demonstrate that the petitioner No. 2 (plaintiff No. 2 in the suit) was the second wife of Late Munesar. It is this amendment application, which has been rejected by the impugned order. The Court below has observed in the order that the amendment is not permissible at such a belated stage. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is neither any dispute as regards the plaintiff No. 1 being son of Munesar nor any dispute that plaintiff No. 2 was the widow of Munesar and since an argument was raised during the course of appellate proceedings, to explain the circumstance, the amendment was necessitated and since the amendment did not change the nature of the suit, which was instituted before the amending Act No. 22 of 2002 by which the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was added, the amendment was not barred by any provision of law and as the amendment was clarificatory in nature, the same ought to have been allowed. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that whether Late Munesar was an old and infirm person will be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Likewise, on the basis of the evidence on record whatever argument is developed that cannot be made basis for seeking an amendment, particularly, in a case which has remained pending for 25 years. 5. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, inasmuch as, whether deceased Munesar was an old person at the time of execution of the sale-deed or not is a matter which is to be decided on the weight of evidence on record led by the parties and likewise argument developed will have to be tested on the weight of evidence on record. But merely because some argument has been developed therefore amendment should be allowed is not acceptable, particularly, at a belated stage such as where trial proceeding has been concluded and the matter is pending in appeal. Because during the course of arguments there can always be many hypothesis built on the proven facts of a case and if amendments are allowed only on the basis of arguments raised, then proceedings can never be brought to its logical conclusion and the process of pleading and consequential leading of evidence would continue endlessly. Under the circumstances, keeping in mind several decades of litigation between the parties as also that the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were all throughout in the knowledge of the petitioners, if the Court below refused amendment at the appellate stage, no fault can be found with the order. 6. The petition is dismissed.