( 1 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal ( 2 ) IN brief the suit of plaintiff is that one naram filed a suit against Mangilal who was the predeeessors of defendants That suit was registered as 97-B/68 In that suit narain sought decree of money against mangilal which was borrowed by him That suit was decreed For the realisation of the decretal amount, the suit land was attached and put to auction On 12 7 1976 original plaintiff Narain being the highest bidder bought the land in auction sale for Rs 6500/ On 4 11 1976 a sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff in that regard and on 12 4 1978 warrant of possession was issued and the possession was delivered to plaintiff on 16-4 1978 Thereafter the name of original plaintiff-Narain was also mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 19-12-1978 it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that after having obtained possession through possession warrant on 16 4 1978, he started cultivating the land in question on 29-6-1979 the defendants tried to in terfere in the possession of the plaintiff hence the present suit for injunction has been filed ( 3 ) THE avermentb made by the plaintiff were denied by the defendants It has been put forth by them that they were not aware about the auction sale The defendants denied the possession of plaintiff and prayed that suit be dismissed ( 4 ) THE trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded the evidence The trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed defendants not to interfere in the possession of the decretal possession of the suit land, the description of which is mentioned in the judgment The trial court dismissed the suit for part of suit land. the description of which is given in the judgment ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the decree, both the parties preferred appeals The plaintiff preferred appeal against that part of the decree by which his suit was partly dismissed the defendants filed appeal against the decretal part of the decree of the trial court. the description of which is given in the judgment ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the decree, both the parties preferred appeals The plaintiff preferred appeal against that part of the decree by which his suit was partly dismissed the defendants filed appeal against the decretal part of the decree of the trial court. The first appellate Com t by common judgment dated 13 2-1990 allowed the ap peal of plaintiff and decreed his suit in toto the appeal (Civil Appeal No 68-A/85 New no 1-A/89) which was filed by the defen dants was dismissed The net result is that the suit of appellant ol injunction has been decreed in toto Hence this second appeal by the defendants ( 6 ) THIS second appeal was admitted on 17-9-1990 on the following substantial questions of law" (1) Whether, the learned first appellate court's finding regarding possession is vitiated because it completely over looked to consider the oral evidence led by the appellants about their possession over the suit lands? (2) Whether, the judgment of the lower appellate Court can be sustained even though it did not decide the application for amendment of the written statement, which was to have been considered along with the final hearing and decided in the judgment?" ( 7 ) REGARDING substantial question of law No 1: it has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellate Court erred in substantial error of law by overlooking and considering the oral evidence led by the appellants in regard to the possession On the other hand, it has been contended by Shri B A Nigam learned counsel tor respondents that the appellate Court after considering the entire material placed on record has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit land It has also been put forth by him that the land was purchased by original plaintiff-Narain in auction sale and later on the sale certificate was also issued on 4-11-1976 and in pursuance to the sale certificate the warrant of possession was issued and the possession was delivered on 16 4 1978 He has also invited my attention that in pursuance to the sale certificate and the possession, the name of original plaintiff was also mutated in the revenue papers The contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the defendants were not even aware about any Court proceeding and they only came to know when plaintiff came to take the possession It be seen that according to defendants' own case they came to know about passing of the decree issuance of sale certificate etc on 16-4 1978 but they did not file any proceeding in any Court challenging and setting aside the sale and it that is the position, according to me, now defendants cannot raise the validity of the auction proceedings and delivery of possession PW 2 Bailiff-Mannulal has stated that the possession was delivered to the plaintiff in pursuance to the sale certificate and possession warrant The pos session warrant is Ex P-5 Since defendants did not raise any objection regarding the sale by filing any application under O 21. R 90, cpc , according to me, the sale became absolute under O 21, R 92, C PC and the possession was delivered in terms of R 95 ol O 21. R 90, cpc , according to me, the sale became absolute under O 21, R 92, C PC and the possession was delivered in terms of R 95 ol O 21. CPC Looking to the document of delivery of possession, it is revealed that the possession of the suit land was delivered to plaintiff-Naiain This being a pure finding of fact cannot be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under S 100 CPC Substantial question of law No 1 is answered accordingly ( 8 ) REGAIDING substantial question of low No 2 it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for appellant that the amendment application was moved before the appellate court to amend the written statement that amendment application was marked by the appellate Court as I A No 7 Learned counsel for appellants has invited my attention to the order sheet dated 7 8 1989 and has submitted that on that day the amendment application was moved and ultimately it was heard along with the appeal on 22-1-1990 but no decision was given by the appellate court while dismissing the appeal of defen dants According to learned counsel in this view of the matter the appellate Court may be directed to re decide the appeal and to decide the application The argument so advanced at the first blush appears to be quite attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny, is found to be devoid of any substance the contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the basic averments in regard to the amendment application is already in the written statement the proposed amendment is nothing but the explanation of it I am failed to understand that if the basic ingredients oi the facts which are raised in the amendment application are in the written statement what was the necessity to file the same in the appellate court There is no explanation that why it was not filed in the trial Com t Ac cording to me it was filed only to prolong the case This fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that admittedly defendant, did not file any application to set aside the auction sale as required under Rr 89 and 90 of O. 21 cpc Since no application was filed by the defendants to set aside the sale no case of their is made out Since no action has been taken by the defendants challenging the sale proceeding and sale certificate accoiding to me the possession which was delivered under R 95 oi O 21 C P C to me original plamtiff-Narain whose legal representatives are present respondents the defendants had no right title and interest to interfere in then possession Substantial question of law No 2 is answered accordingly ex consequentie, this appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs appeal dismissed. .