JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance of the public notice issued by this court informing the litigants that they are welcome to appear before this court and to argue their case as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, Mr. Raj Krishna Kapoor, the petitioner, and Mr. Suresh Mangal, the respondent, are present in person. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.6.1988, the petitioner as the landlord, had filed a civil suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant. During the course of the trial, he had filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint. By order dated 24.4.1998, the learned trial court had granted him permission to amend the plaint. Consequently on 20.5.1998 he had submitted an amended plaint and the trial continued. By judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004, the learned trial court had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent-defendant filed an appeal before the learned Judge. According to the petitioner, when the appeal was listed for final arguments, while preparing the case for final arguments, suddenly it was noticed that description of the property in dispute was incomplete. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint and for giving a more detailed description of the property in dispute. However, by order dated 28.2.2014, the said application has been dismissed by the learned Judge. Hence, this petition before this court. 4. Mr. Raj Krishan Kapoor, the petitioner, has pleaded that it was a typographical mistake that the complete description of the property in dispute was not given in the plaint. Since an incomplete description may cause prejudice to his interests and rights, he should be allowed to amend the plaint. Therefore, according to him, the learned Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing his application. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Mangal, the respondent-defendant, has contended that the petitioner had ample opportunities to amend the plaint as far back as 1998. Surprisingly, from 1988 till 1998, the application for amendment was not even moved. Therefore, according to him, the learned Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing his application. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Mangal, the respondent-defendant, has contended that the petitioner had ample opportunities to amend the plaint as far back as 1998. Surprisingly, from 1988 till 1998, the application for amendment was not even moved. Even after the application was allowed in 1998, the petitioner did not amend the description of the property in dispute. Thus, after an inordinate delay of almost twenty six years, he cannot and should not be permitted to amend the plaint. Therefore, the respondent has supported the impugned order. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that a litigant is supposed to be vigilant about his/her interests and rights. Thus, it was imperative for the petitioner to defend his interests and rights during the course of the trial. In order to grant him a complete opportunity to establish his case, the learned trial court had permitted him to amend the plaint. Despite being given an opportunity to amend the plaint, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the description of the property in dispute was not amended by the petitioner while submitting the amended plaint on 20.5.1998. Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff has slept over his interests from 1998 till 2014. Faced with the prospects of finally arguing his appeal, the petitioner has suddenly woken up to the fact that the property in dispute may not be described in a great detail. However, he has not submitted a single cogent reason for his laxity for over two and a half decade. Needless to say, the court does not rush to the rescue of a litigant who is not vigilant about his own interests. 8. Moreover, even during the course of the trial the petitioner was free to describe the property in dispute in his testimony in order to make out exact location of the property in dispute. If he has failed to do so, he cannot be permitted to plug in all the loopholes left by him at the stage of appeal. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has also noticed the fact that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application for amending the plaint. If he has failed to do so, he cannot be permitted to plug in all the loopholes left by him at the stage of appeal. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has also noticed the fact that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application for amending the plaint. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in rejecting the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. 10. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******