CR No. 2613 of 2011 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2613 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.04.2011. Chand Singh @ Charan and others .......Petitioners Vs. Uttar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint, alleging therein that during the pendency of the suit, defendants had installed pipes and had caused hindrance in the passage of the plaintiff. By way of amendment, plaintiff wanted to seek the relief of mandatory injunction. Vide order dated 16.3.2011, Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the application for amendment of the plaint, filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the present petition by the defendants No. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court has erred in allowing the application for CR No. 2613 of 2011 - 2- amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment, plaintiff has changed the very nature of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Although, the plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and not carving out any water course in the suit land and laying out water pipes but as per the plaintiff, the defendants during the pendency of the suit had installed pipes and had caused hindrance in the passage. In these circumstances, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek the relief of mandatory injunction. In these circumstances, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application seeking amendment of the plaint was liable to be dismissed as it had changed the nature of the suit, is without any basis. Since as per the plaintiff, the pipes had been installed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, the only option left with the plaintiff was either to file a fresh suit for mandatory injunction or to seek amendment of the plaint and incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction. The learned trial court has, thus, rightly allowed the application. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2011 Gurpreet