JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the rival contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the respondent, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff Mr. Nathiram Kashyap purchased a plot of land on 31.01.2001 from Smt. Kashmiri Devi to construct the house thereon. This plot of land has been shown by the letters A, B, C and D in the map annexed with the plaint. 2. Originally the property was of Sri Hajari Lal Jain and after his death his wife Smt. Jainwati Jain sold the number of plots of such property to some persons including the plaintiff and they constructed their houses on the plots purchased by them respectively. All these houses are situated adjacent to each other and have been shown by the figures H, A, B, F, D, C and I. The sale deed, got executed by the plaintiff, showed the pathway towards East as well as in the South. 3. In the West of the plot of the plaintiff as well as other neighboring adjacent persons, there was a land which was vacant and owned by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). At some later point of time, BHEL raised its boundary wall leaving certain space/land between such wall and the western wall of the plaintiff as well as other adjacent neighbors. This vacant land began to be claimed by the plaintiff and all other neighbors as if it was a pathway/thoroughfare towards west of their houses inasmuch as one of the neighbors Mr. Vijay Pal Singh began to place his high power electric generator on such land. Thereafter, he brought a Suit of injunction and the issue was ultimately adjudicated in the Writ Petition No.1859 of 2014(M/S) by this very Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.08.2014, wherein the whole controversy was appreciated and it was expressed by this Court that by no stretch of imagination, this vacant land towards the west of Mr. Vijay Pal Singh (plaintiff/petitioner in that matter) can be accepted as a road and further it was adverted that prima facie, it appears to be the property of Mr. Hajari Lal Jain or his successors and it was sold to Mr. Prem Chand Jain, who is the father of the present defendant/respondent. 4. The Suit was filed by Mr. Vijay Pal Singh (plaintiff/petitioner in that matter) can be accepted as a road and further it was adverted that prima facie, it appears to be the property of Mr. Hajari Lal Jain or his successors and it was sold to Mr. Prem Chand Jain, who is the father of the present defendant/respondent. 4. The Suit was filed by Mr. Nathiram Kashyap seeking injunction, restraining the defendant from making any construction on such land and further not to make any sale deed pertaining to this land. 5. Amendment application was moved by the revisionist seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.04.1990, whereby the property, in question, was sold by Smt. Jainwati Jain to Smt. Hemlata Jain and further the cancellation was also sought for the sale dated date 01.10.2004, whereby the same property was sold by Smt. Hemlata Jain to Mr. Premchand Jain and his wife Smt. Darshan Devi Jain. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that Smt. Darshan Devi Jain and Mr. Premchand Jain executed a gift deed in favour of their son Omkar (defendant herein) regarding the same plot of the land. So, through this amendment application, cancellation was also sought for the gift deed dated 06.08.2012. 7. Since, Sri Nathiram Kashyap (plaintiff) prima facie has nothing to do with the land, in question, by any stretch of imagination, as has been expressed earlier in the Writ Petition No.1859 of 2014(M/S), so this way in such a suit pertaining to the same land it is difficult to accept that he could seek the cancellation of sale deed as well. 8. Amendment application/ impleadment application has rightly been rejected. This revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed. 9. It is hereby made clear that any observation of this Court made hereinabove, will not cause any prejudice to the Trial Judge while adjudicating the matter after recording the evidence of the parties.