IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5930 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.9.2010 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2010 by which the prayer of respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the pleadings has been allowed. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the petitioner be restrained from shifting the electric motor from the place which was depicted in the plaint. Subsequent to the filing of the suit he moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying that the suit be converted into that of mandatory injunction and that the petitioner be directed to restore the connection to its original place. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the facts were in the knowledge of the respondent-plaintiff who chose to remain silent for more than a year after filing of the suit and now at this stage he cannot be permitted to change the nature of the suit. C.R.No.5930 of 2010 (O&M) -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no legal infirmity has been committed by the trial Court. The controversy pertains to an electric motor and existence and shifting thereof. In this view of the situation, when the suit for permanent injunction was filed at the initial stage and merely a prayer for mandatory injunction has been incorporated on the premise that some facts transpired subsequent to the filing of the suit, it cannot be said to be changing the nature of the suit. Likewise, correcting khasra numbers does not imply that there is a change in nature or prayer made in the suit as the controversy still remains more or less the same. No ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. 27.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss