JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th July, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 61 of 2013 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24th July, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 29 of 2012 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. 2. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. She complained that if the construction is allowed to be raised by the defendants on "B" schedule property, then the plaintiff's easementary right of light and air in her property will be affected. She further complained that the construction was not raised in accordance with the Building Rules of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 1981. 4. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said suit on contest. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appeal court. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned appeal court. Hence, the instant second appeal has been filed. 6. The learned appeal court held that having regard to the fact that during the pendency of the suit the construction has been completed, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not prayed for appropriate relief by way of mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction by bringing on record the subsequent events regarding completion of such construction at the instance of the defendants during the pendency of the suit. 7. Though we find that the plaintiff sought for a declaratory relief and a prohibitory injunction in the suit, but for bringing the subsequent events regarding completion of such construction during the pendency of the suit and for incorporating an additional relief by way of mandatory injunction, she filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. She accepted the order of the learned Trial Judge by which her prayer for amendment of plaint was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 8. The plaintiff/appellant did not challenge the legality and/or correctness of the said order, rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint while she filed the first appeal before the learned appeal court. Since the plaintiff/appellant accepted the order rejecting her application for amendment of the plaint, she cannot now challenge the legality of the said order for the first time in this second appeal by jumping the forum. 9. We, thus, do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the learned appeal court that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in the instant suit as the plaintiff has neither brought the subsequent events on record by way of amendment nor she has prayed for any mandatory injunction for demolition of the unauthorised construction which allegedly affects her easementary right of air and light in her premises. 10. Accordingly, we do not find involvement of any substantial question of law in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted. We thus decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The appeal thus stands dismissed. Re: CAN 3391 of 2015 (Stay) 12. Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 3391 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of.