Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard Sri R. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant petitioner and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent and the learned standing counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order by which the Appellate Court has allowed the amendment application moved by the plaintiff respondent.

3. The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming easementary right of fresh air etc., against the defendant petitioner. The Regular Suit No. 557 of 1996 was dismissed by the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.2.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff respondent preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure pending before the District Judge, Faizabad. During the pendency of appeal, the plaintiff respondent moved two amendment application, which were allowed by the impugned order dated 17.7.2004 and 14.11.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred by the defendant petitioner.

4. Sri R. S. Pandey learned counsel for the defendant petitioner submits that moving amendment applications by the plaintiff respondent, is an abuse of proce