JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- In the present revision petition, petitioners haveassailed the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.) Moga vide which application under Order 6 Rule 17CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 6Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was to the following effect:- “Respectfully Showeth:- 1. That the above titled suit is pending in this Hon’bleCourt and fixed for dt. 13.10.2015. 2. That the properties mentioned in the head note ofthe amended suit came to the knowledge ofplaintiffs now. 3. That the plaintiffs have been compelled to file theamended suit for kind perusal at further necessarydecision in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that theamended suit may kindly be accepted and order to bepassed for placing on record the amended suit for furtherdecision in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying uponB.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 511; M/sEstralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., 2001(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 362; Bhupinder Singh vs. Smt. Balwant Kaur, 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 397; M.P. Rajasekharan Nair vs. Raju andanother, 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 464(Kerala); Inder Pal Singhvs. Bankey Bihari, 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 210and Mani Rajvs. Firm Radha Krishan Siri Niwas, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 125contended that the power to allow amendment is wideenough and can be exercised at any stage of litigation in orderto curtail multiplicity of litigation and in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentshas brought to the notice of the Court that the case is already atthe stage of final arguments before the trial Court. Theproperties have already been pleaded by the plaintiffs in theplaint and the filing of the application for amendment at thisstage is an intended effort to delay the disposal of the suit. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned counselfor the parties. 6. Sub Rule (2) was added to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC asper amendment in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh wherein itwas prescribed that every application for amendment shall be inwriting and shall state the specific amendments which aresought to be made indicating the words and paragraphs to beadded, omitted or substituted in the original pleadings. 7. 6. Sub Rule (2) was added to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC asper amendment in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh wherein itwas prescribed that every application for amendment shall be inwriting and shall state the specific amendments which aresought to be made indicating the words and paragraphs to beadded, omitted or substituted in the original pleadings. 7. Apparently, the application of the petitioners does notsatisfy the mandatory requirement inasmuch as that theapplication is totally discrepant and lacks mandatoryrequirement of law. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs earlier filed anapplication for amendment of the title of the suit which wasallowed vide order dated 19.07.2014. Thereafter applicationunder Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the suit withprayer to file fresh one on the same cause of action was filed.The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on15.09.2015 and the said order has become final. Even anapplication for additional evidence was filed and the same wasdismissed by the trial Court on 09.07.2015. After availing theaforesaid remedies, the present application for amendment ofthe plaint came to be filed on 03.10.2015. 8. It is true that all necessary and bona fide amendmentsare to be allowed. At the same time mala fide amendmentsshould not be encouraged. Each case is to be decided on thebasis of its own facts. In the present case the application foramendment lacks material requirement. Secondly, thepetitioners have already availed remedy of first amendment videwhich amended title of the plaint was allowed to beincorporated. The second effort for withdrawal of the suit withpermission to file fresh one under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC on thesame cause of action was declined by the trial Court. The saidorder has attained finality. Thirdly the effort made by thepetitioners to lead additional evidence was also declined on09.07.2015. The case has already reached to the stage of finalarguments. 9. Perusal of the record would show that the details of theproperties have already been incorporated in the pleadings. Thebifurcation of the properties in the manner as suggested by thepetitioners would not advance the case of the petitioners in anymanner. Even otherwise, the amendment is not proved to bebona fide by any stretch of imagination. 10. There cannot be any dispute with regard to theproposition of law as enunciated in the aforesaid precedents,but in my considered opinion the amendment sought by thepetitioners cannot be treated to be bona fide in order to attractthe ratio of the aforecited judgments. 11. Even otherwise, the amendment is not proved to bebona fide by any stretch of imagination. 10. There cannot be any dispute with regard to theproposition of law as enunciated in the aforesaid precedents,but in my considered opinion the amendment sought by thepetitioners cannot be treated to be bona fide in order to attractthe ratio of the aforecited judgments. 11. Having considered the controversy in entirety, I am ofthe view that the application filed by the petitioners lacksmaterial and mandatory requirement of the Rule. The case isalready at the fag end before the trial Court and at this stage noindulgence can be granted in favour of the petitioner.Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed on merits.