Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57408 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 588 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shivbachan Respondent :- Shivadhar And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Ganesh Kumar Verma,Navin Kumar Sharma,Shashi Kant Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- ,Kedar Nath Mishra Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. No one is present on behalf of respondents. Office report dated 22.01.2025 indicates that notice issued to respondents of the substitution application has been delivered but no one has put in appearance. In view of said fact, notice on respondents is deemed sufficient. The plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 843 in the year 1986. It was dismissed in the year 2011. A Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2011 was filed in which an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved on 20.11.2015 which was numbered as Paper No. 31Ka2. Through that application, the petitioner had sought amendment to the extent that the two Plot No. 286 and 282 though have been disclosed in the plaint but the area was not disclosed. The said amendment application was opposed by defendants- respondents and the same was rejected by order dated 04.01.2016. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only a clerical mistake and the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side and it should have been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case that suit was instituted in the month of October, 1986. The plaintiff had moved number of amendment applications during the pendency of the suit which was allowed by trial court in which no such amendment was sought during the pendency of the suit by plaintiff. It is almost after 28-29 years that application has been made at the appellate stage in regard to area of two plots no. 286 and 282. The court below has rightly rejected the application for amendment as it has been filed at a highly belated stage. Once the plaintiff-appellant had already sought amendment in his plaint number of times before court below, he should have got his plaint amended to that extent. Moreover, the trial court has already recorded a finding while deciding the suit mentioning the area of the plots. No case for interference is made out in the order impugned. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad