Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard Ms. Prashansa Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 21 of 2002, in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lucknow, dismissed by order dated 15.01.2009, challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing a Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2009 (Kuldeep Saxena v. Smt. Sukhrani and others) on 20.02.1990. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been moved before the appellate authority for making certain amendments in the plaint, the same has been opposed by the defendant.

3. By an order dated 28.10.2015, Additional District Judge, Room No. 2, Lucknow/respondent No. 1ppellate authority had rejected the same, the said order is under challenge in the present case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. In order to decide the said controversy, it is necessary to state the following facts in brief. Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as exists before 1999 is quoted as under: -

"Order 6, Rule 17 :

"17. A