Civil Revision No. 1460 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1460 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.03.2009. Dharam Pal and others ....Petitioners Versus Ghasitu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs whose plea under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the amendment of plaint was declined by the learned Trial Court. The suit, as originally filed, was for restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in their possession on the land in suit. Also applied for was the restraint of defendants-respondents from encroaching upon any part of land and from alienating it. At the trial, the plaintiffs applied for the appointment of a Local Commissioner on 15.10.2001. The plea was granted. The Local Commissioner visited the site on 10.1.2002 and upheld the grievance of the petitioners herein that the defendants-respondents had raised construction of their house which (construction) was in violation of the Civil Revision No. 1460 of 2009 -2- **** status quo order granted by the learned Trial Court on 16.4.2001. It was thereafter that the plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to be able to include therein a plea for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-respondents to demolish the construction raised by them in violation of the order on point of status quo. The learned Trial Court declined the application on point of delay in filing thereof. On the own showing of the plaintiffs-petitioners, the Local Commissioner visited the site on 10.1.2002. The Local Commissioner upheld the plea of petitioners herein that the defendants-respondents had raised construction of their house. The raising of that construction was in violation of the status quo order granted by the learned Trial Court on 16.4.2001. There is no explanation whatsoever on the record to indicate why did the plaintiffs-petitioners refrain from filing the amendment plea aforementioned for a long number of years. The plea under reference was filed in the year 2008. The plea aforementioned had been filed only when the matter was fixed for adducing evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners and last opportunity had been given for the purpose aforementioned. Apart therefrom, the learned Trial Court appropriate noticed that the plaintiffs- petitioners had also filed an independent suit for mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction aforementioned. I fully concur with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court which is self-explanatory and sustainable in character. Dismissed in limine. March 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge