JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs being aggrieved of order dated 07/05/2022 passed by learned IX Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewa rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC whereby petitionerplaintiff sought to challenge order dated 16/09/2002 passed by the SubDivisional Officer in revenue proceedings. 2. The ground for challenging such order by way of amendment is that earlier counsel had not informed him about the necessity of challenging said order of Sub-Divisional Officer and when counsel was changed then this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, it is prayed that the amendment be allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal, 2017 (3) MPLJ 717 wherein placing reliance on para 14 of the judgment it is submitted that condition (4) is important which provides that refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation and thus amendment be allowed. When learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is asked as to when this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 16/09/2002 came to his knowledge, then he fairly admits that this order was in his knowledge since beginning. When Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is asked that how he will gather limitation to challenge order dated 16/09/2002, he reads Para - D of the amendment application pointing out that against the order dated 16/09/2002 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer whereby appeal was accepted and partition was set aside, Jamuna Prasad Shukla had filed Second Appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Rewa which came to be dismissed on 01/05/2018, but fact of the matter is that the order which was passed on 16/09/2002 was within the knowledge of the petitioner and this fact could not be disputed. 3. Perusal of the proceedings reveal that the suit was filed in the year 2014. 4. Issues were framed and affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in support of his evidence and then this application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed. 3. Perusal of the proceedings reveal that the suit was filed in the year 2014. 4. Issues were framed and affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in support of his evidence and then this application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed. Petitioner-Plaintiff is not in a position to explain that how application for amendment is within the period of limitation and why it was not challenged before the trial Court at the time of filing suit or earlier when it was already within the knowledge of the petitioner- plaintiff. 6. In view of such facts when impugned order is tested in the light of judgment of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), then the underlying principle is that amendment proposed can be allowed provided it is ona fide, relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in lis. 7. In the present case the aspect of ona fide is missing. Amendment is moved after five years of filing of the suit and almost 19 years of passing of the order by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, for lack of ona fide no interference is called for in the impugned order. 8. Sence, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.