IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3045 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 05, 2008 Bariam Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat,Chhainsa .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. Application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of their plaint stands dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated April 22, 2008. They are now before this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. be accepted. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant-Gram Panchayat from interfering in their peaceful possession on the suit property, which they claimed to have been allotted to them. While the suit was pending, learned Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad vide letter dated 1.5.2001 cancelled the Civil Revision No. 3045 of 2008 -2- allotment of the suit property and, accordingly, mutations Nos. 9206, 9207, 9208 and 9209 were sanctioned on 1.6.2001. On learning about the cancellation of their allotments and sanctioning of the mutations, the plaintiffs filed the application for amendment of their plaint so as to seek relief of declaration that the cancellation as well as the mutations were not binding upon their rights, title and interest and, therefore, null and void, ab initio and non est in the eyes of law. The limited claim sought by the plaintiffs in their plaint was to restrain the defendant-Gram Panchayat from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property. In its written statement, the defendant- Gram Panchayat had pleaded that the allotment of the suit property by the Panchayat was not in its interest, but the plaintiffs would be ejected only in due course of law. It was, thus, clear that the dispute regarding title to the suit property was not the main relief sought by the plaintiffs, but it was only to protect their possession. In the event of the amendment of their plaint so as to seek relief of declaration regarding the ownership over the suit property, the nature of the suit would undergo substantial change in which the plaintiffs would be required to establish that the allotment of the suit property in their favour by the defendant- Gram Panchayat was valid and could not be cancelled later on. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that mere change of nature of suit was no ground to reject the prayer for the amendment of the plaint. In this regard, he relies upon Hi-Bred (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Siddashwar Farms (P) Ltd., 2007(1) PLJ 352. In the said Civil Revision No. 3045 of 2008 -3- decision, suit for mandatory injunction had been filed by the plaintiffs therein, requiring the defendants to pay a particular amount. Later on, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint so as to convert the suit into one for recovery. It was under those circumstances that the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiffs for amendment of their plaint was allowed. On the other hand, in the present case, the plaintiffs had initially sought the relief of permanent injunction, but later on, sought amendment of the plaint to claim relief of declaration against the cancellation of the allotment of the suit property in their favour and sanctioning of mutations. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577 and Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (dead), 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 279, also submitted that where cause of action arises during pendency of suit, amendment in pleadings be allowed even if nature of relief is changed, but did not change the basic structure of the suit. Moreover, that would also avoid the necessity to file an independent suit. Though, it is correct that the cause of action for the plaintiffs to ask for amendment in their plaint arose only during the pendency of the suit for permanent injunction, yet it is also clear that nature of relief to be granted to them would undergo a change, besides change of basic structure of the suit. While praying for the grant of permanent injunction, the plaintiffs were to establish their possession over the suit property, whereas for the relief of declaration, they would be required to establish that they were entitled to the allotment of the suit property and it was also in the interest Civil Revision No. 3045 of 2008 -4- of the Gram Panchayat in allotting the same to them. In case, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs is granted, that would confuse the real issue before the Court. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the plaintiffs to file a separate declaratory suit against the cancellation of the allotment and sanctioning of mutations. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case is made out for any interference in the same. The revision, being without any merit, is, therefore, dismissed. However, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to file a separate declaratory suit, if so advised, for challenging the cancellation of the allotment and sanctioning of mutations. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 05, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO