ORDER 1. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that this appeal is to be heard only on the question of law as per the settled position. 2. This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 rule 1(u) of the CPC is at the instance of the defendants No. 2, 3 and 6 challenging the remand order of the first appellate Court dated 19.7.2016. 3. The respondents-plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title and declaring the sale deeds dated 12.11.2007, 7.7.2006, 2.9.1987 and 21.8.2012 as null and void and also for permanent injunction with the plea that Chhotelal had two sons Raghunath and Khuman Singh, who had ancestral property at village Kapuria and that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Ganga (Respondent No. 15 herein) were members of the joint property and that Raghunath had died issueless and his six acres of land was received by Khuman Singh and his six sons. Accordingly each of the member had received two acres. The defendant No. 1 had received two acres of land showing the business need and had sold it to the different persons, hence no share was left with him. It was further pleaded by the respondentsplaintiffs that on 5.6.2008 on enquiry from Patwary, they had come to know that the defendant No. 1 on 2.10.2001 had got the six acres land of Raghunath mutated in his name and had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 4 on 12.11.2007, 7.7.2006, 2.9.1987 and 21.8.2012, hence the present suit was filed. The suit was opposed by the defendant No. 1 Ganga by denying the plaint averment and raising the plea that partition had taken place between Raghunath and Khuman Singh during their lifetime and that the suit was barred by time. 4. The other defendants who had purchased the suit land from defendant No.1, had raised the plea of being bona fide purchaser. 5. The trial Court by the judgment dated 8.12.2015 had found that the defendant No. 1 had sold the suit land to defendants No. 2, 4 and 6 without authority and the sale deed was void and had also found the suit to be within time, but had dismissed the suit on the ground that the respondentplaintiff had not claimed the relief of possession. 6. 6. At the appellate stage the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint which has been allowed by the first appellate Court and the judgment of the trial Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court to give the defendants opportunity to make consequential amendment in written statement and also give the parties opportunity to lead evidence on the basis of the amended plea and decide the suit afresh. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs relief in respect of the possession was barred by limitation, hence, the amendment could not have been allowed. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no error has been committed by the trial Court in remanding the matter back and that after remand all the formalities have been completed, the plaintiffs evidence is over and the matter is now at the advance stage of the defendant's evidence. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the objection relating to the relief of possession being barred by time has duly been examined by the first appellate Court in detail while allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint. The first appellate Court has noted that the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable, wherein the limitation of 12 years has been prescribed. It has also been noted that the issue if the plaintiff had the knowledge of possession prior to 5.6.2008 is a factual issue which can be decided on the basis of the evidence but considering the plea on the basis of the pleading about knowledge from 5.6.2008, the relief of possession was not barred by time. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid the first appellate Court has not committed any error in allowing the amendment and remanding the matter back. Hence, no case for interference in this appeal arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.