IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.633 of 2009 Date of decision : August 3, 2010 Smt. Kaushalya Devi …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Venu Garag …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 7th October, 2009 of the trial Court, by which plaintiff’s-respondent’s prayer, for amendment of plaint, has been allowed. 2. Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant-petitioner from interfering in her possession over certain landed property, which she (the respondent) claims to be in her possession. She made an application for amendment in the plaint, to the effect that during the pendency of the suit, she has been dispossessed and so decree for possession may be passed in her favour. That amendment has been allowed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner says that amendment application had been moved with an intention to delay the proceedings, because the plaintiff- respondent had already been granted seven opportunities to lead evidence, when the present application was moved. May be that the intention of the plaintiff-respondent is what the learned counsel submits, but that by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer for amendment, especially when it is alleged that dispossession of the plaintiff-respondent has taken place during the pendency of the suit. So, the petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that when affording opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence, after the amendment of the plaint, trial Court shall bear in mind the fact that seven opportunities had already been granted to the plaintiff for leading evidence and, therefore, it will not grant more than two opportunities for leading evidence. 5. Order of the trial Court does not say that the defendant-petitioner shall have the right to file written statement to the amended plaint. Even if the order does not say so, when plaint is allowed to be amended, that implies that the defendant has the right to file written statement to the amended plaint. …3… Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11th August, 2010. Records be returned immediately. August 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J