Judgment/Order : 1. Petitioner has moved this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 17.08.2015 passed by Civil Judge (South), Udaipur, whereby application filed by the defendant/non-petitioner No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed in the year 2005. The issues were framed in the year 2006 and now after a delay of almost seven years, the defendant No. 1 has moved an application for amendment of pleading and by way of amendment, the defendant wants to incorporate pleadings pertaining to counter claim, which cannot be permitted at this belated stage. 3. Counsel for the respondent/defendant No. 1 submits that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has opened a new window and has shifted the old window, therefore, the easementary rights get extinguish and the amendment was therefore, necessary for deciding the main controversy in the suit. 4. Counsel for the defendant No. 1 agrees that if the impugned order is quashed, he would move fresh application only to the extent of incorporating the amendment relating to the plaintiff having constructed a new window and having shifted the existing window and thereby extinction of easement. 5. Counsel for the petitioner is also agreeable to the same, in view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Defendant No. 1 would be at liberty to move a fresh application incorporating the factum of plaintiff opening a new window and shifting the existing window. The trial court will decide the said application, considering the admission of plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 would be at liberty to file a fresh suit in relation to this counter claim in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The stay petition also stands disposed.