Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30112 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 22 of 2025 Revisionist :- Umesh Kumar Opposite Party :- Ganga Shankar And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Smt. Ruchi Gupta,Anil Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.04.2025 whereby the amendment application preferred by the revisionist in the pending Appeal No.93 of 2017 has been rejected. 3. The facts that emerge are that mother of the revisionist had filed a suit in some time in the year 1990 seeking the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of the property specified in the said suit. It is stated that the suit was decreed and the defendant in the suit preferred an appeal being Appeal No.93 of 2017. When the matter was being heard, an amendment application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint by adding an additional plea claiming the relief of easementary right alongwith perpetual injunction. 4. The said application has been rejected by the appellate Court mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the same has been filed after substantial delay and secondly, on the ground that two clearly contradictory reliefs cannot be claimed; particularly when the ownership has been claimed, easementary right cannot be claimed. 5. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1990 and the amendment application has been filed at the fag end when the appeal is about to be disposed off, the amendment application was barred even in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, thus, I do not see any reason to exercise my revisional jurisdiction against an order which is in consonance with the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 6. No interference is called for. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench