IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6016 of 2009 Date of decision : December 10, 2009 Satbir Singh ....Petitioner versus Rajender Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by defendant no. 1 assailing order dated 29.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby allowing amendment of plaint on payment of Rs 300/- as costs. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants (petitioner and proforma respondent no. 5 herein) from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property by raising construction thereon. In the amendment application it was alleged that inspite of interim order passed by trial court directing parties to maintain status quo, the defendants raised construction over the suit property. Accordingly by way of amendment, the plaintiffs sought additional relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said walls from the suit property and to open the gate of the suit property of the plaintiffs which Civil Revision No. 6016 of 2009 -2- has been closed by the defendants by raising construction, leaving no access to the suit property of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is sketchy. It is correct that the order is a brief order but this by itself is not a sufficient ground to set aside the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the walls in question had been raised by defendants in the year 1973. However, this plea pertains to the merits of the suit. Even after amendment, the plaintiffs have to prove, in order to seek additional relief of mandatory injunction, that the defendants raised construction in question during the pendency of the suit. The proposed amendment cannot be disallowed merely on the aforesaid plea of the defendants that the construction had been raised in the year 1973 because the said plea can be adjudicated upon only after the proposed amendment is allowed. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 10, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'