ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by order dated 25.01.2014 in Title Suit No. 01/2008, whereby, amendment in the plaint has been permitted, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Title Suit No. 01 of 2008 was instituted for declaring sale-deed dated 19.02.2007 as forged, fabricated and collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a declaration of their right, title and possession over Schedule-A property. The plaintiffs have claimed that 0.08 acres land in Plot No. 2626 in Khata No. 402 was in actual khas possession of one Bihari Modi with whom the said land was mortgaged. The recorded landlord Lilo Singh after re-deeming the mortgage came in actual khas possession over the 0.08 acres land in Plot No. 2626. After the death of Lilo Singh, 4.94 acres land under different plots in Khata No. 402 was settled on 25.02.1950 in the name of his widow who came in actual khas possession over the said land. Through subsequent transaction 0.08 acres land was conveyed through two sale-deeds both dated 09.02.2007 to Chintaman Singh, Janardhan Singh, Shrimati Indra Devi and Chotu Singh. The plaintiffs claimed that the aforesaid land has been mutated in their name and they are in possession over the suit land. It appears that after the defendants closed their evidence, application dated 18.01.2014 was filed for incorporating the following prayers: "(i) be declared that plaintiffs have subsisting occupancy riyati right and title over suit land fully described under schedule give below. (ii) That, words “by declaring” appearing the second line be deleted and it is place and be added. 2. That following sub Para be added after sub para (i) of Para 14 of the Plaint. (ii) That in case during pendency of the suit if plaintiffs are found dispossessed from suit land the khas possession over suit land be given to them." 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs failed to disclose the date of dispossession during the pendency of Title Suit No. 01 of 2008 and in their evidence also they have failed to bring evidence on the said point and therefore, the amendment for incorporating the prayer that, “in case during pendency of the suit if plaintiffs are found dispossessed from suit land, khas possession over the suit land was given to them” could not have been allowed. 4. 4. From the affidavit filed by the defendants opposing application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it appears that the said application was filed after the defendants closed their evidence. The petitioners have produced evidence led by the parties in Title Suit No. 01 of 2008. Considering the materials brought on record, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid amendment incorporated in the plaint vide order dated 25.01.2014 is in-consequential. In view of the fact that in application dated 18.01.2014, the plaintiffs have failed to aver the date of dispossession during the pendency of the suit and in fact they have not even averred that they have been dispossessed, aforesaid amendment should not have been allowed. Considering the fact that the said application was filed at the stage of hearing any indulgence by this Court would only delay the disposal of the suit. However, the plaintiffs must be debarred from leading further evidence on the said issue. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.