IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1867 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 01, 2008 Harbans Singh ....Petitioner Versus Lachhman Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. T.N. Sarup, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner so as to restrain respondents from cutting/uprooting or lifting 375 poplar trees standing/planted in the land measuring 90 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Bhangala, illegally and forcibly until and unless the land partitioned by the competent Court of jurisdiction on the basis of oral and documentary evidence of all kinds. During its pendency, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to amend his plaint on the ground that taking advantage of the fact that no interim relief had been granted to him, the defendants had cut down 350 trees, including Civil Revision No. 1867 of 2008 -2- 348 poplar trees, which act of the respondents was illegal, null and void. Moreover, on the basis of his earlier application, a Local Commissioner had been appointed, who, vide his report dated 5.12.2005, described about the standing and uprooted trees in detail, which report had already become part of the file. Therefore, he sought permission to amend the plaint so as to seek relief of mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to give amount of the sale proceeds of the trees cut by them. In their written replies, the respondents averred that the application was not bonafide. They denied all the averments made in the application and prayed for its dismissal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar vide impugned order dated 28.11.2007 dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner had filed the suit for permanent injunction. No interim relief was granted to him. In case, the allegation of the petitioner is accepted that the respondents cut/uprooted a number of trees standing/planted on the suit land that would give him a fresh cause of action. On the other hand, if he is allowed to amend his plaint that would change the nature of the suit itself, as he would then plead for the relief of mandatory injunction. If such relief of Civil Revision No. 1867 of 2008 -3- mandatory injection is allowed to be pleaded by the petitioner that would require the parties to lead evidence regarding the type of trees standing on the suit property and cut/uprooted by the respondents, their ages, dimensions and the price which would complicate the main suit filed by the petitioner for the grant permanent injunction. Though, the law permits granting of amendment of plaint so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation yet, it would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, once it is shown that the amendment sought would change the very nature of the suit. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 01, 2008 JUDGE satish