In the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 989 of 2009 (O&M) Raj Kumar ... Petitioner vs Manju Rani and others ... Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was allowed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from dispossessing her or changing the nature of the suit land. By way of amendment, the relief of declaration was sought to claim that the respondent-plaintiff is owner-in- possession of Plots No.12 to15 in Khasra No. 7316. In the alternative, relief of possession was also sought, in case the court found that the respondent-plaintiff was not in possession of the property. The application having been allowed, the petitioner-defendant is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has committed illegality in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint which clearly changed the nature of the suit. Initially the suit was filed for permanent injunction only which was sought to be changed to declaration and possession. The same should not have been allowed. The change in the pleadings has caused prejudice to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The suit filed on 5.9.2008, was at a very initial stage, when the application for amendment was filed. The same having been allowed, in my opinion, no prejudice as such has been caused to the petitioner. None of the parties has yet disclosed his/her defence. It is not the case of the petitioner that the claim which is sought by the respondent-plaintiff by way of amendment is barred by limitation or any statute. Once a fresh suit on the same cause of action is maintainable, in my opinion, even if the amendment in the plaint has been allowed, the same cannot be said to be illegal. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 25.2.2009 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge