Short Note : The plaintiff's case is that the deceased Tejsingh, on 22-5-1961, sold the disputed property to him and handed over possession of the suit lands. The defendants Nos.2 and 3 have no legal right in the suit lands. On 20-7-1961, they have taken forcible possession of the land bearing survey number 3342 and of the rest of the land on 30-5-1963. With collusion of the Patwari, defendants got their names entered as Shikmies, but on the basis of these entries, they are not entitled to any right or title. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is for declaration that he is Pucca tenant of the suit land and he be put in possession of the said lands. Held: Before me, the learned counsel submitted that there is no proof that plaintiff was in possession and was Pucca tenant of the suit lands. This contention cannot be accepted because, it is admitted by the defendants that Tejsingh was a Pucca tenant and Tejsingh had sold the property to the present plaintiff. Therefore, whatever rights Tejsingh had the present plaintiff has. As far as the sub-tenancy is concerned, the defendants have neither produced any document to show that they were sub-tenants of Tejsingh or that there was any Patta given to them by Tejsingh or anyone else, nor they have produced any receipt of Lagan. Then the defendant in his statement has not stated as to how he became a sub-tenant. The appellant has submitted an application under Order 41, rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure and that application was pressed before me by the learned counsel vehemently. In the application there is no cause given for not filing these documents in the trial Court. It is alleged in the application that they were misled by the advice of the counsel. If this fact is correct, then it can be said that they had sufficient ground, but they have not filed any affidavit of the counsel to support this submission. The suit was filed in the year 1963. After 15 years to allow such an application will be doing injustice to plaintiff. Therefore, as there is no sufficient cause shown and as also it will work injustice to the plaintiff. I do not see any ground to accept this application. Therefore, that application is rejected. The suit was filed in the year 1963. After 15 years to allow such an application will be doing injustice to plaintiff. Therefore, as there is no sufficient cause shown and as also it will work injustice to the plaintiff. I do not see any ground to accept this application. Therefore, that application is rejected. One more submission was made before me by the learned counsel for the appellants and that is on 30-3-1966, they submitted an application under Order 16, rule 1 CPC for calling Patwari as a witness and that application is not considered. I see that in appellate Court they have not made this a ground. Therefore, it will amount that they did not press this application, when appeal was being heard. Now to allow this application, when it was not pressed before the Appellate Court will not be justified. Therefore, there is no substance in the ground taken before me regarding the application dated 30-3-1966. Appeal dismissed.