C.R. No. 7578 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7578 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.07.2010 Balraj and another .....Petitioners Versus Superintending Engineer, Bhakra Water Services Circle, Kaithal, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2009, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the suit, stands dismissed. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Irrigation Department of the Haryana State from raising construction of kotra minor through the land of the petitioners, as it was claimed that the land has not been acquired. On an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Court appointed Local Commissioner, who submitted his report to the effect that the construction of minor is being raised on the land acquired and the compensation already stands paid to the petitioners. In view of the pleadings and documents placed on record specially the report of the Local Commissioner, the learned trial Court C.R. No. 7578 of 2009 -2- dismissed the application for temporary injunction. The petitioners thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint by contending that now the defendants are constructing the minor in violation of site plan and alignment plan by changing the width of strip from 16.50 ft. for right side and 27.50 ft. for left side from the centre line of line section of channel which they have no right to do so. The application was contested, wherein stand was taken by the State that compensation of the land acquired stands paid to the plaintiffs. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs wanted to put another stay application for temporary injunction as earlier application was already dismissed, thus, the present application was mis-use of the process of law. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that as the previous suit filed was that no construction could be raised without acquisition of land, the amendment sought is in the nature which would change the cause of action, as now the plaintiff/petitioners were seeking that the Department cannot change the alignment. The application for amendment, therefore, was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the learned trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application for amendment as the amendment sought was necessary to adjudicate the claim of the petitioners, and in any case the respondents could have been compensated with costs. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the law of amendment being very liberal, the amendment should C.R. No. 7578 of 2009 -3- have been allowed, as it was necessary to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once it is not disputed that the compensation for acquisition of land has been paid, the petitioners prima facie does not have any case to restrain the raising of minor. The amendment also could not be allowed, as the petitioners by way of amendment want to change the cause of action and nature of the suit. The application moved by the petitioners is thus misuse of the process of the Court, therefore, rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 20, 2010 R.S.