Civil Revision No.5626 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5626 of 2009 Date of Decision 11.11.2009 Avinash Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus Rajesh Balagan &others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Mohan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge is the present petition is to the order dated 25.8.2009, passed by the learned trial court whereby an application filed for amendment of the plaint was declined. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for grant of ad interim injunction. The learned trial court has granted the order to maintain the status quo. It is a case of the petitioner that after the order of status quo, the defendants have encroached upon the vacant land Civil Revision No.5626 of 2009 -2- illegally and raised the construction on the vacant portion, therefore, the plaintiff wants to amend his plaint so as to claim a decree for mandatory injunction to remove the super structure constructed over the vacant land of the plaintiff. The learned trial court has declined such application on the ground that had there been any actual encroachment, after the order of status quo, the plaintiffs would have lodged a complaint to the police or have filed an FIR or shown some photographs to the effect that defendants have encroached upon their property. Since, the application is not supported by any cogent material, therefore, the amendment cannot be allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. At the stage of consideration of the application for amendment, the court is not to examine the merit or correctness of the amendment sought. Veracity of the amended pleadings has to he seen after evidence is lead by the parties. What is required to be seen is whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff does not change the nature of dispute or the amendment is not permissible for any other reason. In the present case, the plaintiff contends that after filing of the suit, the defendants have encroached upon the property of the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to prove the said assertion or the fact that defendants have encroached upon the property of the plaintiff. On proof of such facts alone on the basis Civil Revision No.5626 of 2009 -3- of evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff would be entitled to the decree sought. In this view, the reasoning given by the learned trial court cannot be sustained. Consequently the order dated 25.8.2009, is set aside. The amendment sought by the petitioner is allowed. The present revision is disposed of accordingly. November 11, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) rishu JUDGE