JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. Office report dated 25.2.2020 indicates that an affidavit of service was filed by the revisionist which is dated 28th September 2012 pursuant to the dasti notices having been handed over to the counsel for revisionist fixing 15.10.2012. In view of the said fact, the notices on the respondents is deemed sufficient.

3. The present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar on an application No. 324-Kha in Original Suit No. 24 of 2010 dismissing the said application filed by the plaintiff-revisionist under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment.

4. Case, in nutshell, is that the plaintiff-revisionist filed Original Suit No. 24 of 2010 against the defendants-respondents for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, shopkeepers, agents, dealers, stockiest or any other person acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or