Civil Revision No. 7671 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7671 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision :25.3.2010 Saroj Rani and another ... Petitioners vs Naresh Kumar and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, for respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition by the petitioners, who are defendants no. 1 and 2, is to the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by respondents no. 1 to 3/ plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint, was allowed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents no. 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendant nos. 1 and 2 from raising any type of construction/ erection on the property in connivance with defendant no. 3 without getting the site plan sanctioned and further restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 from raising any sort of commercial building/ complex i.e. shops etc. on the site in any manner whatsoever. The suit was filed on 30.3.2006. During the pendency thereof an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking permission to add relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to demolish the construction which according to the plaintiffs had been raised by the petitioners not strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The amendment having been allowed by the learned court below, the petitioners/defendants no. 1 and 2 are before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners in the present case are unnecessarily being harassed by respondents no. 1 to 3 in connivance with respondent no. 4. The property in question is owned by the petitioners with which the respondents no. 1 to 3 have no concern. In fact, they were pressurising the petitioners to sell the property to them as it has a prime location and the property of respondents no. 1 to 3 is located behind that with opening in a street only. The petitioners having resisted all kinds of actions taken by respondents no. 1 to 3 to harass the petitioners so that they are not able to raise construction on the property owned by them, the suit was filed. In the suit, the prayer was for restraining the petitioners from raising construction without getting Civil Revision No. 7671 of 2009 -2- the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Council. The suit was filed on 30.3.2006. As the petitioners had got their plan sanctioned, construction was raised in the year 2006 only. At that stage, the suit itself became infructuous. Now at this late stage in the year 2009, application was filed seeking relief of mandatory injunction which is not at all maintainable considering the fact that respondents no. 1 to 3 cannot possibly seek direction for demolition of the property of the petitioners as there is no clash of interest of any kind with them. In fact, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is in the form of public interest litigation which is not maintainable before the civil court rather respondent nos. 1 to 3 are trying to settle their personal score. Prior to the present suit even the father of the plaintiffs had filed a suit but in that no relief having been granted, the present suit was filed by the sons. It was further submitted that no notice has been issued by the Municipal Council alleging any violation in the construction carried out by them after getting the plan sanctioned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the construction was raised by the petitioners during the pendency of the suit, the application for amendment is maintainable with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. As regards the maintainability of the suit or the relief prayed for in the amendment application is concerned, it is for the court below to examine the issue. The suit is at the initial stage and the amendment will not change the nature of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint is not at all relevant for the purpose of decision of the lis between the parties. In case any construction has been raised by the petitioners which is not strictly in terms of the sanctioned building plan, it is for the Municipal council to take action thereon and not for the court to examine those issues and direct the person concerned to demolish the building. There are appropriate remedies available under the provisions of the relevant Act for taking care of such a situation. It is not the case set up by respondents no. 1 to 3 that inspite of issue having been brought to the notice of the Municipal council, no action was being taken and respondents no. 1 to 3 are public spirited persons who are taking care of all the building violations in the city. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The petition is disposed of. 25.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge