Civil Revision No. 4835 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4835 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 Gram Panchayat Village Burj Muhar, Abohar ......Petitioner Versus Sajjan Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Pawan Malik, Advocate, for Shri C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 16.5.2009, whereby the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint so as to claim the decree for mandatory injunction was declined. The plaintiff-Gram Panchayat has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from blocking or encroaching upon any area of Phirni. The assertion of the plaintiff is that after the filing Civil Revision No. 4835 of 2009 [2] of the suit the defendant has raised construction, thereby blocking the passage and therefore, the plaint was sought to be amended so as to claim a decree for mandatory injunction. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that such application is beyond the period of limitation from the date the cause of action arose. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction in view of the fact that the defendant has raised construction during the pendency of the suit. It is contended that the amendment sought for would enable will enable the Court to pass a decree for mandatory injunction in the event it is found by the Court that the construction was raised by the defendant over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the suit itself is not maintainable in respect of the land which vests with Panchayat. It is contended that the remedy of the petitioner lies lies under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, to seek eviction of an authorised occupant, if any. The question whether the suit is maintainable or not, is not required to be decided at this stage. The fact remains that the plaintiff alleges construction by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. If such is the situation, then the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint Civil Revision No. 4835 of 2009 [3] so as to claim a decree for mandatory injunction. In view of the said fact, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint, as prayed for. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.10.2009 ds