Civil Revision No.4384 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4384 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Mohd. Aazam ......petitioner Versus Abdul Jabbar and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.K.Garg, Advocate. for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from illegally, forcibly and without due course of law demolishing the house comprised of two rooms, court yard and stair case bounded as under:- East: H/o Mohd. Din West: H/o Mohd. Din North: H/O Khushi Choudhary South: Passage. Civil Revision No.4384 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Situated at Sirhandi Gate Mohalla Maqbarian, Malerkotla and from changing the roofs of the said bouse or any other relief. B: Suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to deliver the vacant possession of the house detailed in headnote (A) of the plaint above the plaintiff, or any other relief. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved an application for permission to amend the plaint. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to include the relief of declaration to the effect that he is owner of the house in dispute and was entitled to get back the possession of the said house from the defendants. The said application of the plaintiff was dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.4.2009 by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Initially, in the suit, the plaintiff has sought the relief of possession of the house in dispute from defendant No.1 and now by way of amendment, the plaintiff also wants to seek a declaration that he was owner of the house in dispute. The case is listed for plaintiff's evidence. The amendment sought by the plaintiff does not run contrary to the case already set up by him. Although the case is listed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the trial Court should have allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint. In the facts and circumstances of the present Civil Revision No.4384 of 2009 (O&M) 3 case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the relief now sought by him by way of amendment. The ends of justice require that the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint as rules of procedure or technicalities of law cannot be stand in the way of justice. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita