After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case, the fact of the case is that the petitioner has preferred a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the private respondents in which the issues were framed and thereafter, the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed/rejected. Against the said judgment an appeal was preferred in the year, 2014 and after the lapse of 13 years, an amendment application has been moved for amendment in the plaint without giving any reason in the amendment application why the petitioner was not able to make amendment at the time of pendency of the plaint for the case which were in existence when the suit was pending though from the record it was found that the amendment, which was asked by the petitioner at the appellate stage is for "in caption of suit after the word injunction the words; "a declaration of title by means of adverse possession" may kindly be permitted to be added" . On the said point the issue no. 9 was framed and decided by the trial court hence the application for amendment filed by the petitioner in appeal was rejected. About the said finding nothing has been said by the petitioner in the present writ petition nor argued by his counsel. The moving for amendment for a point, which was decided after framing an issue by the trial court is nothing but effort on the part of the petitioner to linger the proceedings indefinitely and in the order itself it has been mentioned that the appellant is seeking adjournment continuously.
