when the issues had been framed by the Court on 30.03.2015. Learned counsel argued that if the amendment as prayed for is allowed, it would take the suit back to square one and the respondents will be required to file amended written statement requiring even the issues to be amended. He argued that the petitioner-plaintiff ought to have been vigilant and his inaction for more than a period of 2½ years cannot be ignored/condoned by the Court. The amendment should not be allowed simply because it is not likely to cause prejudice to any of the parties, he argued. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was negligent and has failed to bring the subsequent facts by moving appropriate application with requisite promptitude. Though the construction of the shop on the contentious site was raised in March, 2013 and petitioner’s son started his business thereupon, yet, the petitioner did not deem it appropriate to bring those facts on record. The petitioner’s amendment application having been filed after more than 2½ years is belated and the same has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court, given the fact that the issues have been framed on 30.03.2018 and trial had commenced.
