S. N. Srivastava, J.—Petition in hand has its genesis in the impugned order dated 10.10.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 276 whereby Application No. 269C under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. and application No. 296C for amendment in the written statement have been rejected by the lower appellate court.

2. It would appear from the record that Suit No. 912 of 1990 was instituted by respondent No. 2 for the relief of permanent injunction. The aforestated suit culminated in being decreed and this led to filing of appeal before the lower appellate court. During pendency of appeal, the petitioners preferred application Nos. 269C under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. and 296C for amendment in the written statement. The aforestated applications came to be rejected by means of impugned order dated 10.10.2003 and it is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been instituted for the relief of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also traversed upon the impugned order for its intrinsic merit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners who was arrayed as respondents in the suit canvassed that the amendment