IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 175 of 2011 Decided on: 07.09.2011 Devender Dutt & another …Petitioners. Versus Rajesh Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 1st April, 2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby he allowed the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land measuring 106-15 bighas till the same is partitioned. In the suit, it was alleged that 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- the plaintiff is one of the co-owners and in exclusive possession of 4-3 bighas and that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession. During the course of the trial of the suit, partition proceedings which were pending before the revenue authorities were decided and mode of partition was prepared and as per this mode of partition, khasra No. 850/352/21 has been alloted to the plaintiff-applicant and khasra No. 850/352/20 to the defendants-respondents. The only amendment sought by the plaintiff by way of amendment is that he has restricted his prayer for grant of injunction to khasra No. 850/352/21 measuring 3-10 bighas. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that possession has not been delivered and hence the partition proceedings are not complete. It is immaterial whether partition proceedings are complete or not. This is a question which the learned trial Court has to decide on the basis of the evidence led before it. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence has to find out whether the partition has actually been effected or not, or whether the parties have been put in possession of their shares on the basis of such partition. However, when the plaintiff reduces his plea by seeking injunction qua 3-10 bighas of land only, no prejudice is caused to the defendants whatsoever. Merely allowing the application for amendment does not mean that the contention of the plaintiff has been -: 3 :- accepted. The defendants are free to contest the suit on its own merits. 4. As far as the amendment is concerned, since the mode of partition has been prepared during the course of the proceedings and I have been informed at the bar that the appeal qua the same has also been rejected, the learned trial Court was fully justified in allowing the amendment application. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 07, 2011 (rajni)