1. The petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat-plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision, questioning Sub-Judge Pulwamas order of April 11, 2009 rejecting petitioners application seeking amendment of the Plaint. 2. Appearing for the petitioner, his learned counsel submits that the amendment proposed by the petitioner, in his plaint was essential for just decision of the case as the plaintiff wanted to specifically plead his right of Easement of necessity besides the right of Ingress and Egress to his property which, according to him, had been erroneously declined by the trial Court. 3. Per contra Mr Allaudin Ganai appearing for the defendants and Mr. S.R.Khawar appearing for applicants, in application IA(C) No.332/2009, submitted that the amendment sought for by the petitioner was unnecessary in view of his detailed pleadings, which had been rightly rejected by the trial Court and no interference with the trial Courts order may thus be warranted in revision. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the petitioners plaint, copy whereof was made available during the course of hearing, and the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 5. Petitioners application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that he had failed to spell out in his application as to which portion of his pleadings, he wanted to be altered, modified or supplemented and in this view of the matter his application did not warrant acceptance, for, allowance of the amendment would otherwise, prejudice the defendants. 6. Perusal of the petitioners application, forming part of the records, indicates that except giving history about his ownership over the suit property, the petitioner has nowhere indicated as to how the proposed history regarding his ownership, was relevant for deciding the rights of the parties in the suit. 7. Petitioners counsels submission that the facts pleaded in petitioners application were necessary for pleading right of Easement and right to Ingress and Egress to his property, is found to be without substance, in that, no such plea has been raised in the application seeking amendment of the plaint. 8. Perusal of the petitioners plaint, even otherwise indicates that the petitioiner has pleaded in paragraph No.4 of his original Plaint, the violation of his right of Ingress and Egress besides saying that the existing pathway was the only pathway to reach his shops. 9. 8. Perusal of the petitioners plaint, even otherwise indicates that the petitioiner has pleaded in paragraph No.4 of his original Plaint, the violation of his right of Ingress and Egress besides saying that the existing pathway was the only pathway to reach his shops. 9. The rights which the petitioner proposes to project by way of amendment, in the plaint, having already been so pleaded in the original plaint, the petitioners prayer for amendment of the plaint was un-necessary. 10. For all that has been said above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the petitioners application, when neither any prejudice is shown to have been caused to him with the rejection of his Application, nor does the order suffer from any illegality, irregularity or error of jurisdiction. 11. Found without merit, this Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.