,^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Writ Petition(Art. 227) No.3650 of 2011 Suraj Prakash Nashine, son of Late Mohan Lal Nashine, aged about 70 years, resident of Ward No.7, Tilda- Nevra, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Nagar Palika Parishad, Tilda-Nevra, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur (CG) 2. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur (CG) 2^0 {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Vikrant Singh, counsel forthe respondents. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (10-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 20-6- 2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-ll, Tilda in Civil Suit No.QA/2010 whereby the application for amendment in the plaint relating to mandatory injunction instead of prohibitory injunction on the basis of subsequent event has been dismissed before the stage of framing of issue. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint and other documents. 3. As per copy of the plaint, originally the suit was for prohibitory injunction and after the alleged demolition of construction, the plaintiff has prayed for amendment in his pleading and tried to amend his plaint by deleting the words 'prohibitory injunction' and adding the words 'mandatory injunction'. By the order impugned, the Court below has committed illegality. •^N. >c Soma 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby quashed. The application filed on behalf of the petitioner herein for amendment in his pleading is also allowed. Amendment shall be carried out within a week. The respondent herein may make consequential amendment. No order as to costs. T.P. Sharma Judge ^