JUDGMENT [1] The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition. In that suit defendant no.9 was not impleaded as a party. She filed an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that she had purchased 0.66 acres of land from defendant No.3(group). [2] The learned trial Court while partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition held that defendant No.9 had actually purchased such land and therefore, out of the land falling to the share of defendant No.3(group) she was entitled to claim 0.66 acres. [3] No appeal was filed by defendant No.3(group) against the said decree. The appeal has only been filed by the plaintiff and now an application for amendment has been filed. In this application it is stated that after filing of the appeal the plaintiff has come to know that the husband of the defendant no.9 is holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and, therefore, the defendant no.9 is not entitled to get this land from defendant No.3(group). [4] I fail to understand how the plaintiff has anything to do in the matter. In case the rights of the parties have been determined. Their shares have been determined. In case defendant No.9 is not entitled to purchase the land that will be a matter between her and defendant No.3(group) and the plaintiff has nothing to do with this issue. [5] Therefore, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.