( 1 ) (HIS Lordships after Stating the facts of the Case further of served ).

( 2 )

( 3 )

( 4 ) THE main bone of contention between the parties is se regards the request by the defendants to amend the Written Statement after the preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court and after the preliminary decree had become final. The defendants submitted application Ex. 239 before the trial Court and requested the trial Court to permit them to amend the Written Statement by raising a contention that the defendants were tenants of the suit lands prior to the suit transaction and they were in possession of the suit lands as tenants and the tenancy was revived on the Court passing a preliminary decree and therefore possession cannot be awarded to the plain tiffs as they had become deemed purchase of the land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge passed a speaking order below this application on 30-11-1977 and rejected the same. The defendants appellants have contended before this Court in this appeal that the trial Court should have allowed the amendment sought for by