Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This is the plaintiff’s revision seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mainpuri in Suit No. 203 of 2012 (Ram Das v. Mukesh Chandra and others). By the impugned order the plaintiff’s amendment application seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for prohibitory injunction on 16.4.2012 which was registered as suit No. 203 of 2012. The defendant-respondents herein filed their written statement on 3.5.2012 and thereafter the Court framed issues on 3.7.2013. In the plaint map to the north of the plaintiff’s shop it was mentioned as shop of Shishu Pal Yadav and to the south it was mentioned as vacant land of Betey Lal. The plaintiff felt that the shop in question had not been adequately described in the plaint map therefore he filed an amendment application on 23.9.2013 and sought an amendment in the map by mentioning prior to the shop of Shishu Pal Yadav the words “drain and constructed over the drain” and in the