ORDER : S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Aggrieved of order dated 16.2.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 89 of 2012 by which an application for amendment in the plaint has been allowed, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No. 212 of 1993 was instituted by Jai Narayan Singh for a declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit land. There were other ancillary prayers also made. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 5.10.2012, against which the defendants who are petitioners in the writ petition preferred Title Appeal No. 89 of 2012. In the pending Appeal, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on 23.4.2014 seeking amendment in the plaint for incorporating the following paragraphs:- "(a) That after para 17 new para 17(a) as follows be added: "17(a) That during last two months from December, 2013 to February, 2014 the defendants/appellants forcibly began to make constructions on schedule B lands in suit and constructed house and structures thereon in spite of protest by the plaintiffs/respondents, dispossessed the plaintiffs from schedule B lands in suit." (b) That in para 20(b) at the end the full stop be removed by comma, and thereafter following sentence be added: "and in case the defendants make any construction and dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land schedule B, the plaintiffs be put in khas possession over schedule B lands in suit by demolishing and removing the houses and structures." 3. Referring to judgment in Title Suit No. 212 of 1993, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that evidences led before the trial court would indicate that the defendants were in possession of the suit property over which a hutment was standing. It is contended that a relief which the plaintiff could have sought in the suit, however, by creating a false cause of action the amendment application dated 23.4.2014 was filed which should have been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that in spite of due diligence the matter could not have been incorporated in the pleadings. 4. A perusal of the application dated 23.4.2014 would disclose that the respondent nos. 4. A perusal of the application dated 23.4.2014 would disclose that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Title Appeal No. 89 of 2012 have claimed that during pendency of the appeal the appellant illegally and forcibly constructed house over the schedule 'B' properties and dispossessed the plaintiffs (who were substituted on death of the original plaintiff) from the suit properties. The contention that the defendants were in possession of schedule 'B' properties, in view of the specific assertion by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their application dated 23.4.2014 cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The trial court in its judgment in Title Suit No. 212 of 1993 has not recorded a finding on possession of the defendants. Amendment in the pleadings in view of subsequent events can be permitted. While adjudicating the prayer for amendment in the pleadings, the Court is not required to examine the merits of the matter except, in cases where the relief is barred by limitation. 5. In the above facts, finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 16.2.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.