DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners-defendants against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the application moved by them under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) for amendment of the written statement at the appellate stage, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners only want to incorporate the additional/alternative plea in the written statement. They want to plead that deceased defendant Harbilas was a permanent licensee and had made the valuable construction of permanent nature in the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff and other proprietors of the village. He contended that the aforesaid plea could not be raised at the time of filing the original written statement as they were not given the proper legal advise. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the aforesaid amendment is essential to determine the real question in controversy between the parties and the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly dismissed the application.

3. I have duly considered the afore