IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4903 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.8.2010 Smt. Santra Devi ....Petitioner Versus Mahadev Prashad Lohia ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2010 by which the amendment initiated by the respondent was allowed. The respondent had earlier filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction directing the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, to deliver the possession of the suit property to him. Subsequently by way of amendment he wanted to change the nomenclature of the suit by converting it into a suit for possession which amendment has since been allowed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has contended before this Court that the amendment has been allowed at the fag end of the trial and it amounts to change of the complexion of the suit. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner but am unable to agree to the contention that has been raised by him. The C.R.No.4903 of 2010 (O&M) -2- substantial prayer made by the respondent was pertaining to the possession of the suit property and merely because a nomenclature of the suit has been changed from that of mandatory and prohibitory injunction to that of a suit for possession, would not alter the complexion of the suit. Consequently, the revision petition is held to be without any merit. However, there appears to be some substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment was allowed at the belated stage and purely on account of the negligence of the respondent. In this view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with the modification that the respondent shall be burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/- for seeking the amendment at a belated stage. 6.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss