IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.152 of 2010 Date of decision : May 28, 2010 Raj Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Giri Raj and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents : Nemo. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Defendant has filed the present petition against the order of the Civil Court, whereby amendment of plaint has been allowed, in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. Amendment, which has been allowed is in the prayer clause only. In addition to the reliefs of prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction for demolition of structure, prayer for addition of the relief of possession of the allegedly encroached upon property, on which structure has been raised, has also been granted. There is nothing wrong about the order of the Civil Court, because the amendment allowed by it would help in avoiding multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. May 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?