Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel.

3. The subject matter of challenge in the present petition is the rejection of an amendment application moved by the plaintiff at the appellate stage. The petitioners herein are legal heirs of the original plaintiff, since deceased, substituted in his place. The plaintiff’s suit is for a perpetual injunction. He claims to be the owner of the suit property. It is his case that on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 14th August, 1989, which was nominally executed by him, the defendant was trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and as a result, he was constrained to file the present suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendant. The suit was heard and dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court at Buldhana. During the pendency of that appeal, the plaintiff moved the present application for amendment of the plaint, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 14th August, 1989 was nominal, sham and bogus and represented a money lending transaction and not a genuine sale in the eyes of law and