Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner is the plaintiff whereas respondent is defendant and they will be referred as such in this judgment. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint is dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that on 4.7.1992 the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the passage comprised in Khasra No. 297, as stated in relief clause of the plaint. The defendant has contested the suit mainly on the ground that there has been no common passage as claimed by the plaintiff, though there are other common passages as stated in Paragraph-8 of the written statement available to the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, issue No. 1 is as under:— "Whether there exists a passage comprised in Khasra No. 297 which is passage of easement of necessity, as alleged?" OPP

3. In the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC ad-interim injunction was granted on 6.7.1992 restraining the defendant "from creating any sort of obstructions upon disputed path leading from Khasra Nos. 297, 274 to