Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioners who were plaintiff in a suit after dismissal of the suit filed appeal before the lower appellate court and before the lower appellate court filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint at the appellate stage. This application has been dismissed by the lower appellate court with the observation as under :

“Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that sufficient pleadings taking the grounds of acquiring title by way of adverse possession has already been taken by the plaintiff/appellant in suit. The plaintiff has not given the sufficient reasons as to why he could not assert these words in suit at earliest opportunity, so the amendment application is not liable to be allowed. These facts were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. This amendment application being paper No. Ka-38 has no merit and therefore, liable to be rejected.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision B. K. N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and another, AIR 2000 SC 614, wherein it was held as under :

“This Court in A. K. Gupta and Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, 1966 (1)