Rakesh Garg, J. CM. No. 12886-C of 2013 & CM. Nos. 11440-43-C-2013 Counsel for the appellants has prayed that he be allowed to withdraw civil miscellaneous applications i.e. C.M. Nos. 11440 to 11443-C of 2013 as there are typographical/clerical errors in the applications as well as in the affidavits supporting the said applications and he also be allowed to substitute the applications i.e. C.M. Nos. 12887-90-C-2013 with the applications which have already been filed in this appeal. Ordered accordingly. C.M. No. 12887-C of 2013 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, delay of 25 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 12888-C of 2013 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 12890-C-2013 in/and RSA No. 4231 of 2013 (O&M) 1. The appellants filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant respondents seeking declaration that General Power of Attorney dated 3.9.1991, sale deeds dated 5.9.1991 and 23.4.2004 were illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As per the averments made in the suit, plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of agricultural land situated in village Bandhwari comprising in Khewat No. 73, Khatoni No. 229, Khasra No. 630(1-16), Kita 1, measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas pukhta i.e. 5 Bighas 8 Biswas, Kham (Kaccha), for the last more than 60 years though Gram Panchayat and was shown to be its owner in the revenue record. After consolidation in the year 2000-2001 new numbers in place of old numbers of land were allotted i.e. Khewat No. 35, Kita 7 measuring 41 Kanals 8 Marias -180/828 share measuring 9 Kanals 0 Maria. In the year 1991, Jagan Singh defendant No. 3 approached plaintiff's father Kude and told him that he will take steps for getting ownership rights of Kude and obtained thumb impressions of Kude on certain papers. In the year 1991, Jagan Singh defendant No. 3 approached plaintiff's father Kude and told him that he will take steps for getting ownership rights of Kude and obtained thumb impressions of Kude on certain papers. The aforesaid Jagan Singh by playing fraud got prepared power of attorney dated 3.9.1991, registered on 4.9.1991 vide vasika No. 122, on the basis of said GPA, defendant No. 3 sold the land immediately on 4.9.1991 to Nand Gopal Bangur defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed bearing No. 977 dated 5.9.1991 for a fictitious price of ` 56,500/-. The plaintiffs or their father Kude was never informed by defendant No. 3 of any sale of land. Thus, the plaintiffs have pleaded the aforesaid sale deed dated 5.9.1991 in favour of Nand Gopal Bangur-defendant No. 1 was illegal, null and void. It was further pleaded that since there was no valid and legal title with Nand Gopal Bangur, hence the sale deed dated 23.4.2004 vide vasika No. 237 in favour of defendant No. 2 was also illegal, null and void. The mutation No. 2994 in favour of Nand Lal Gopal Bangur-defendant No. 1 was sanctioned on 6.5.2004 after a period of 13 years. It was further claimed that after the death of Kude, the possession of the disputed land came to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who were in possession of the suit land for last more than 60 years, have become owners of the same because their possession was peaceful, never disturbed by anyone and was to the knowledge of all. Thus, their possession was adverse. It was alleged in the suit that the defendants came upon the suit land duly armed with their persons to take forcible possession, however, could not succeed. Hence the necessity arose to file the instant suit. 2. Upon notice, defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 appeared. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land and have no right, title or interest therein. It was denied that defendant No. 3 obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of plaintiff on blank papers. It was further denied that defendant No. 3 played any fraud upon the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs never appointed him as their GPA. It was further stated that the sale deeds dated 5.9.1991 and 23.4.2004 were legal, valid and full of consideration. It was denied that defendant No. 3 obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of plaintiff on blank papers. It was further denied that defendant No. 3 played any fraud upon the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs never appointed him as their GPA. It was further stated that the sale deeds dated 5.9.1991 and 23.4.2004 were legal, valid and full of consideration. It was also stated that the mutation was rightly sanctioned in favour of answering defendant. However, later on defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2007. 3. Defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement taking almost similar pleas as taken by defendant No. 1 in his written statement. 4. Defendant No. 3 despite service did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.9.2008. 5. Defendant No. 4 also filed a separate written statement stating that plaintiff has coined false story. It was further submitted that neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No. 3 have any concern with the suit land rather the same was owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat. Thus, the alleged sale deed dated 5.9.1991 was illegal, null and void. The Gram Panchayat was not bound by the sale and mutation No. 2994 dated 6.5.2004 does not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No. 3 and Gram Panchayat was not bound by sale deed dated 23.4.2004. It was specifically denied that the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land and they have even failed to plead the ingredients of adverse possession. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have colluded with the defendants and that they cannot be allowed to take advantage of the false and frivolous cause of action. It was further stated that jurisdiction of the Court was barred in view of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act as well as under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. All other contents of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 6. Replication to the written statement of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 wherein the contents of the written statements were controverted and that of plaint were reiterated. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. 6. Replication to the written statement of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 wherein the contents of the written statements were controverted and that of plaint were reiterated. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the power of attorney dated 3.9.1991 registered on 4.9.1991 under vasika No. 122, sale deed dated 5.9.1991 registered vide vasika No. 977 in favour of Nand Gopal Bangur defendant No. 1 and the sale deed dated 23.4.2004 bearing vasika No. 237 in favour of Vijay Kumar defendant No. 2 are liable to be set aside being illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD. 6. Relief." 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs holding that there was no illegality in the impugned sale deeds as well as in the GPA in question, rather the same were legal and they were not in possession of the suit property in any capacity. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the defendants being not pressed. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the defendants holding that the suit was not well within limitation and the suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.03.2012. 9. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants filed an application dated 7.2.2013 for leading additional evidence to place on record consolidation proceedings and jamabandis for the year 1984-85, 2000-01 and 2005-06 as also mutations and rapat roznamcha. It was contended that these documents were relevant and necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. The said prayer of the appellants was contested on the ground that these documents are beyond pleadings. It is the admitted case of the appellants that the suit property was in fact allotted in lieu of Khasra No. 630, so that they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their admission. The said prayer of the appellants was contested on the ground that these documents are beyond pleadings. It is the admitted case of the appellants that the suit property was in fact allotted in lieu of Khasra No. 630, so that they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their admission. The aforesaid prayer of the appellants was rejected by the First Appellate Court observing as under:- "In the case in hand, the documents now sought to be produced were very much available when the case was pending before the learned lower Court. No any reason is given by the applicants as to why the said documents could not be tendered when the opportunity to lead evidence was granted to them. There is also noting on the file to show that the applicants had ever moved any application to tender these documents before the learned lower Court but their plea was rejected. Even otherwise, the documents now sought to be placed on file are not relevant for the adjudication of the matter in dispute property and effectively. The main purpose of tendering these documents by the applicants at this stage is to prove that the suit property never fell in the Khewat No. 35 nor is part of total land measuring 41 Kanals 8 Maria as shown in mutation No. 2994 but the land is beyond pleading wherein they have specifically admitted that the land in question was in fact allotted in lieu of Khasra No. 630. Thus, in case the application is allowed, the entire stand of the appellants/plaintiffs would be changed and a new case would be set up. Therefore, the application stands dismissed." 10. The appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.5.2013. 11. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 12. Therefore, the application stands dismissed." 10. The appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.5.2013. 11. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 12. Along with this appeal, appellants have also filed an application i.e. C.M. No. 12890-C of 2013, making a prayer for allowing the plaintiffs to amend their suit submitting that appellants want to incorporate a new paragraph in the original plaint to the effect that Khewat No. 335 was carved out of the old Khewat No. 73, Khasra No. 630 (1-16) and Khewat No. 35, Killa numbers 58//17/1, 23/1, 24; 67//4; 135//17/2, 18; 58//17/2 were carved out from their own land bearing Khewat No. 18 comprised of Khasra No. 616, 620, 358, 360 and 392, and thus, the sale deed dated 23.4.2004 and the mutations dated 6.5.2004 and 23.7.2004 are illegal, null and void and are not binding on the applicant-appellants. 13. It was further stated that the application for amendment could not be filed earlier due to the negligence of the learned counsels, who were conducting the cases before the trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court. However, the mistake on the part of the appellants was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore, they be allowed to amend the plaint. 14. At this stage, para No. 2 of the original unamended plaint be noticed:- "2 That after consolidation in the year 2001-01 new numbers in place of old numbers of the land shown in para No. 1 above, were allotted, which are Khewat No. 35, Kitat 7 Rakba 41 Kanal 8 Marias-180/828 share measuring 9 kanals 0 marla." Vide this application, the appellants are seeking to amend the aforesaid paragraph as under:- "2 that after consolidation in the year 2000-01, new numbers forming part of Khewat No. 335 were carved out from Khewat/Khatoni No. 73/229 comprising Khasra No. 630 equivalent to 1 kanal 16 marlas and a new khewat No. 35 comprising Rectangle No. 58, 67 and 135 and its killa numbers was carved out of old Khewat No. 18 comprised of Khasra No. 616, 620, 358, 360 and 392, which were situated far away from Khasra No. 630. Therefore, the alleged Khewat No. 35 (comprising Rect. Therefore, the alleged Khewat No. 35 (comprising Rect. No. 58, 67 and 135) in the alleged sale deed dated 23.04.2004 was wrongly, illegally and fraudulently shown and has no bearing on the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs in any manner and the subsequent mutations on the basis of the alleged sale deeds are also void, illegal and non est." 15. Thus, according to appellants, they were owners in possession of Khewat No. 18 comprising of old Khasra Nos. 616, 620, 358, 360 and 392 and now after consolidation they were in possession of Khewat No. 35 comprising of area of rectangle No. 58//17/l, 23/1, 24, rectangle No. 67, killa No. 4, rectangle No. 135, killa Nos. 17/2,18 and rectangle No. 58 Killa No. 17/2 which were carved out in lieu of old khasra Nos. 616, 620, 358, 360 and 392. It is their further case that before consolidation, appellants were also in possession of Khewat No. 73, Khatoni No. 229, Khasra No. 630(l-16), Kita 1, measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas pukhta i.e. 5 Bighas 8 Biswas, Kham (Kaccha) whereas in the original plaint it was pleaded by the appellants that in lieu of Khewat No. 35, Kita 7 measuring 41 Kanals 8 Marias -180/828 share measuring 9 Kanals 0 Marla was carved out. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts as stated above, it is clear that the appellants want to wriggle out of their admission to the effect that land in question was allotted in lieu of Khasra No. 630. However, at this stage, it may be noticed that the appellants could not be allowed to amend their pleadings at such a belated stage on the plea that their counsels were negligent. The said plea cannot be accepted on the face of the record. In fact, appellants were very well conscious about their admission made in their original pleadings as the appellants sought to lead additional evidence of this very fact on the basis of which amendment is sought in the pleadings. 17. Thus, despite the facts, the appellants were knowing about their case, they failed to seek their remedy at an appropriate stage and in view of the aforesaid facts, the appellants cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their admission and fill up lacuna by allowing the written statement at this belated stage. Prayer made in this application is declined. 18. Thus, despite the facts, the appellants were knowing about their case, they failed to seek their remedy at an appropriate stage and in view of the aforesaid facts, the appellants cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their admission and fill up lacuna by allowing the written statement at this belated stage. Prayer made in this application is declined. 18. Counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated that in view of the rejection of their amendment in the plaint, no fault can be found in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal. Dismissed.