ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05/05/2015 passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.31-A/12, dismissing the application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC by plaintiff/petitioners. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondents No.1 to 4 had filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against respondents No.5 to 22 regarding the agricultural land situated at Village Naleshree, Tahsil Tarana, District Ujjain. The said land belong to agriculturist Kunwar Ji and the respondents No.1 to 5 claimed that they had one third (1/3) share each in the said land and hence had filed a suit for declaration. Whereas the petitioners 1 to 6 did not have any right, title or interest in survey No.819 rakhba 0.70, from survey No.1018 rakhba 1.23 admeasuring 0.47 and from survey No.1048 rakhba 0.99, total land admeasuring 2.16 hectare and petitioners 1 to 5 claimed that respondents No.5 to 9 had entered into an agreement on sale which was not binding on them and the respondents did not have a right to sell the said land. The petitioners claim that they were the sole owners of the land and had, therefore, opposed the suit filed by the respondents No.1 to 4. Petitioners prayed for dismissal with disclosure to the above said effect and it was the content of the application under Order 6 rule 17. Two applications, to the effect were filed and both the applications were dismissed by the impugned order and hence the present petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the trial Court had erred in rejecting the application primarily because plaintiff were having knowledge that the land had already been sold by agreement dated 2.9.1980 and after a long period of almost 35 years the facts were being produced. Regarding I.A. No.7, the respondents want to add paragraph No.19-A in the written-statement to indicate the fact that by agreement dated 2.9.1980, the deceased plaintiff Gappu Khan and his elder brother Ismaile and Mohhammed’s wife and son Yasin had entered into an agreement with agriculturists Moreshwari and Devdatt for survey No.814, 821, 818, 1049 and 278 in village Naleshree. Regarding I.A. No.7, the respondents want to add paragraph No.19-A in the written-statement to indicate the fact that by agreement dated 2.9.1980, the deceased plaintiff Gappu Khan and his elder brother Ismaile and Mohhammed’s wife and son Yasin had entered into an agreement with agriculturists Moreshwari and Devdatt for survey No.814, 821, 818, 1049 and 278 in village Naleshree. However, on death of the seller, their LRs had entered into different agreements of sale with the family members and they were in the possession separately since LRs of Moreshwari and Devdatt had entered into separate agreements with separate family members. But this fact was suppressed by plaintiff and hence the respondents wished to include this effect in their written-statement. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently opposed the contention in the ground that the application was contrary to the facts on record and pertains to a different property altogether. The property pertains to ancestral property of Kunwar Ji and the application was mala fide. The trial Court has accordingly, in my view, had held that the plaintiff has been examined on 11.4.2014, but the application has been filed on 23.1.2015 apparently indicating that the petitioner/plaintiff had plenty of knowledge from the beginning regarding the said agreement and no proper reason was given as to why it was not brought on record earlier. The application under Order 6 rule 17 cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna and due lapses on the other side and no infirmity is found in the rejection of this I.A. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference in this regard. I.A. No.8 pertains to Order 8 rule 1 of the CPC and is regarding the same agreement dated 2.9.1980 to be taken on record. The reason for producing the said document late was that it was found in house only later. The respondent has resisted the application on the ground that the agreement had failed and was in the knowledge of the respondent well from the beginning. The trial Court has also come to conclusion that the subject matter of the disputed land was totally different from the one that was indicated in the agreement dated 2.9.1980 and in this regard also there was no merit in the application and the application I.A. No.8 was also rejected. The trial Court has also come to conclusion that the subject matter of the disputed land was totally different from the one that was indicated in the agreement dated 2.9.1980 and in this regard also there was no merit in the application and the application I.A. No.8 was also rejected. I find that the order dated 5.5.2015 is well reasoned order and it does not call for any interference. Unwarranted sympathy may cause prejudice to the other side, on this ground also the application being hopelessly delayed was rejected by the trial Court. I find that there is no merit in the present petition and it deserves to be dismissed as such. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as sans merit. No order as to costs.