Civil Revision No.1632 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1632 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Pala Ram .....Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Guhna ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for the restraint of the defendant-respondent from raising the impugned construction over the land in suit which, in terms of locational placement, falls in front of the residential house of the plaintiff-petitioner. The plea, in the context, was that the construction aforementioned had not yet been completed. In the written statement, the defendant-respondent resisted the plea by averring that the construction aforementioned had already been completed. After the pleadings had been filed by both the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to amend the plaint and to thereby ask for a mandatory injunction to demolish the impugned construction. Civil Revision No.1632 of 2008 -2- **** The plea was resisted by defendant-respondent by arguing that it has been filed belatedly inasmuch as the plaintiff-petitioner was cognizant from the written statement itself that the impugned construction had been completed. The plea in the context was that proposed amendment endeavour is not bonafide. Learned Trial Court declined the application by observaing that it (proposed amendment) would materially change the nature of the relief claimed at the trial. I have heard Mr.A.D.Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. The essential purpose of law is to facilitate the grant of substantial justice between the parties to a cause. Though it is apparent that the defendant-respondent did raise a plea about completion of construction in the written statement, it cannot be denied that plea for amendment of the plaint had not been filed after a delay which could be averred to be adequate enough to invalidate the plea itself. The purpose of law is not to punish to a negligent litigant, particularly when the opposite party can be compensated by means of costs. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs. January 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE