Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Shri P. P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. In nutshell, the controversy involved in the present case is that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 160 of 1999 inter alia stating therein that Khasra No. 49 Rakba 10-5-0 belongs to them, recorded as Bhumidhar in the Revenue record. They had given a permission to Shri Chhuttan/thekedar to use the part of land as a way for the purpose of mining in the adjacent land. So, the defendant may be restrained from interfering in any manner on the land in dispute.

3. On the basis of the pleadings/evidence on record, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 19.1.2001that the defendants-appellants should not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute but restrain the thekedar Sri Chuttan from using the way of Khasra Plot No. 49 for the mining purpose.

4. Aggrieved by the said facts, the defendants-appellants filed a Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2003, dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.3.2004. In view of the said facts, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants.

5. During the pendency of the second appeal, on 10.1.2013, the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the appellants to incorporate the following amendments in the written statement :

“That in paragraph No. 2 of the written statement after word ÞLohdkjÞ the word ÞughÞ may be added.

That after paragraph No. 11 of the written statement a new paragraph as para No. 11-A may be added in the following manner : ;g fd lgh rF; ;g fd iqjkuk [kljk uacj 400 jdck 139 ,dM+ xtV uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 27-7-1970 ds }kjk varxZr /kkjk 20 ou vf/kfu;e 1929 jf{kr ou ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k vkSj rHkh ls ;g ou foHkkx ds LokfeRo ,oa dCts esa pyh vk jgh gSA

nkSjku pdcanh ÁfØ;k pdcanh dfeZ;ksa }kjk fNn~nk flag vkfn dh feyhHkxr ls [kljk uacj 400 dks voS/k :i ls fofHkUu [k.Mksa esa foHkDr dj [kljk uacj 400@1 ,oa [kljk uacj 400@2 dks voS/k :i ls u;k [kljk uacj 49 dk;e djds fNn~nk flag ,oa euhjke ds uke ls vafdr dj fn;k x;k gSA

bl Ádkj dh voS/k Áfof"V ds vk/kkj ij okfnx.k dks Hkwfe [kljk uacj 49 ij dksbZ vf/kdkj ,oa LokfeRo ÁkIr ugha gSA

That in second line of paragraph No. 13 of the written statement after the word Þvkcknh ls feyk gqvk gSÞ the word Þvkcknh dk uacj gSÞ may be deleted and its place the word Þvkjf{kr ou dh Hkwfe gSÞ may be added.

That in the second line of paragraph No. 14 of the written statement after the word ÞuEcj 49 ij xyr Áfof"VÞ may be added.

That in four line of paragraph No. 16 of the written statement after the word ÞuEcj 49Þ the word Þxyr Áfof"VÞ may be added.

That in 3rd line of paragraph No. 18 of the written statement after the word ÞuEcj 49 ou HkwfeÞ the wrod Þls feyk gqvkÞ may be deleted.”

6. Shri P. P. Chaudhary, learned State Counsel in support of the application for amendment as sought in the written statement submits that the land in question recorded as Khasra No. 400 having area No. 139 hectare in the revenue record is a forest land. In this regard, he has placed reliance on notification dated 27.7.1970. Thereafter, during the consolidation proceedings, the Khasra Plot No. 400 has been bifurcated as Khasra Plot Nos.400/1 and 400/19 and subsequently recorded Khasra Plot No. 49 in the revenue record. Hence, the plaintiffs-respondents have got no right and title over Khasra plot Nos. 400/1 and 400/2. So, keeping in view the above said facts, amendment is necessary in the written statement. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 wherein it has been held as under :

“Para 16- This being the position, we are therefore of the view th