IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.772/2009 Date of Decision:12.2.2009. Kulwant Singh and another ..........Petitioners. Versus Smt.Balbir Kaur and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.JS Chahal,Advocate for the petitioners-defendants. JASWANT SINGH,J Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nakodar, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was allowed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that by virtue of said amendment very nature of the suit has been changed. It has further been submitted that by way of impugned amendment, suit for permanent injunction has been permitted to be converted into a suit for possession. Originally, respondent-plaintiff Balbir Kaur-a widowed lady alongwith her son, in August 2007, filed a suit for permanent injunction, alleging therein that they were in possession of the suit land, detailed in the head note of the plaint, measuring 30 kanals 0 marlas, as tenants. It was CR NO.772/2009 2 further pleaded that Provincial Government had been recorded as owner to the extent of ½ share in kh.no.12//25/1, 5//20/2, 22,6//25/2,5//20/1,12//25/3,13//3/2 situated in Village Kutbiwal, Tehsil Shahkot. Plaintiffs applied to the Provincial Government for allotment of the said land in their favour under Punjab Package Deal Property Act on the basis of continuous possession since Kharif 1994 and Department of Sales had allotted property measuring 6k-18 marlas, being the ½ share of total land measuring 13-k16 marlas in their favour and a conveyance deed was also issued in their favour on 10.1.2003 which was yet to be registered with the office of Sub Registrar. Copy of the conveyance deed was attached with the plaint. It was further alleged that petitioners-defendants, who are influential persons were threatening to interfere in their peaceful possession and take forcible possession thereof. On the basis of pleadings and documents attached with the plaint, the learned trial Court, on 24.8.2007, granted status quo regarding the possession over the suit property. The case was fixed for 15.11.2007 for filing of written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Respondents-plaintiffs moved application dated 8.11.2007 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that despite the status quo order, on the intervening night of 26/27.10.2007, petitioners-defendants, who wield influence in political and police circle, have forcibly taken possession and sown the wheat crop over the suit land by violating the status quo order. Since the event of dispossession of plaintiffs was alleged to have taken place during the pendency of the suit for permanent injunction, it was prayed that they be CR NO.772/2009 3 permitted to add reliefs of possession and joint possession in the head note of the plaint. Besides that the factum of forcible possession by the petitioners- defendants on the intervening night of 26/27.10.2007 and re-numbering of paras 7 to 11 as 10 to 14, was sought to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment. Upon notice, petitioners-defendants filed reply. The proposed amendment was alleged to be abuse of the process of the Court and it was denied that they had taken forcible possession of the suit land. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2008, allowed the amendment application. Hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perusing the impugned order; the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, upon which impugned order came to be passed; and the reply to the said application filed by the petitioners-defendants, I do not find any merit in this petition which is liable to be dismissed. As is evident from the facts narrated above, the suit was at its initial stage and fixed for filing written statement and reply to the application under Orders 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, when the respondents-plaintiffs moved amendment application, which was necessitated due to alleged forcible possession by the petitioners-defendants over the suit land on the intervening night of 26/27.10.2007. In the amendment application dated 8.11.2007, it was specifically stated by the respondents-plaintiffs that regarding the said forcible CR NO.772/2009 4 possession by the petitioners-defendants they had already reported the matter to the local police on 27.10.2007, upon which no action was taken and thereafter they had also submitted a complaint dated 7.11.2007 in this regard to SSP Jalandhar and a copy of the same was also sent to Chief Minister,Punjab and DGP Punjab. Copy of the said complaint was also attached with the amendment application. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned trial Court while allowing the amendment application has discharged its primal duty to decide as to whether such an amendment was necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. As already noticed above, the amendment was necessitated due to alleged forcible possession by the petitioners-defendants, despite the order of status quo in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, which act was subsequent to the filing of the original suit, and no counter affidavit was filed refuting such dispossession. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. 12.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge