Civil Revision No.7204 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7204 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 Nirmal Singh ….Petitioner Versus Gurcharan Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the respondents. *** A.N. JINDAL, J. Assailed in this petition is the order dated 31.05.2010 whereby plaintiff-respondent was allowed to amend the plaint. The case of the respondent is that earlier he had filed suit for permanent injunction on 24.04.2007 restraining the defendants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioners”) from interfering into his peaceful possession over the premises in dispute and also from putting any hindrance in running the business run by him. Along with the suit he had applied for temporary injunction which was allowed in his favour and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. However, during the intervening night of 12/13.04.2008, the petitioner entered into forcible possession of the demised premises illegally and forcibly by breaking the -1- Civil Revision No.7204 of 2010 locks of the main gate. Therefore, with the change of circumstances, he wants to seek relief of possession and damages by way of amendment in the plaint, which was allowed vide order dated 31.05.2010 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up in revision and agitated the order mainly on the grounds that after the evidence had commenced, the plaintiff could not apply for amendment of the plaint and by way of proposed amendment, the nature of the suit would be changed. Having perused the impugned order, it transpires that on filing of the suit by the respondent on 24.04.2007, the Court while finding a prima facie case in his favour regarding possession, granted injunction in his favour and the appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala on 11.03.2008. Thus, it could be prima facie observed that the plaintiff was earlier in possession of the suit property. Now, the plaintiff by filing the affidavits of the witnesses on 12.08.2009 has specifically pleaded that on the intervening night of 12/13.04.2008, the petitioner entered into the possession illegally and forcibly. It is well settled by now that after the filing of the suit the court is competent to take subsequent events into notice and on occurrence of such events, plaintiff could also apply for amendment to seek an order to undo the wrong which has been done during the pendency of the suit. As such, the respondent has every right to bring on record the subsequent events and the happenings during the pendency of the suit and can mould the relief accordingly by way of amendment of the pleadings. No merits. Dismissed. 22.02.2011 (A.N. JINDAL) vcgarg JUDGE -2- Civil Revision No.7204 of 2010 -3-