C.R. No. 4807 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4807 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.5.2009 Smt. Nirmala Devi ....Petitioner Versus Harjinder Singh Sidhu and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for respondent No.1. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned Court below dated August 13, 2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing her from the suit property which is stated to have been purchased by her vide sale deed dated May 3, 1994. During the pendency of the suit, application for amendment of the plaint was filed with the plea that after filing of the suit the petitioner/plaintiff had been dispossessed on June 6, 2005 which necessitated the petitioner to claim relief for possession of the property as well. The application have been rejected by learned Court below, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner had been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and the suit is at initial stage itself no prejudice as such will be caused to the respondents/defendants in case the amendment in the pleadings is allowed as the petitioner is entitled to claim the relief of possession of the property, which was purchased by her. Even a fresh suit can be filed for the same relief as the same will also not be barred by limitation. However, the same will result in multiplicity of litigation, which should be avoided. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that infact the petitioner was not in possession of the property from the very beginning when the suit was filed. There was no interim stay in her favour which C.R. No. 4807 of 2008 (O&M) 2 means that she was not found to be in possession of the property which needed protection by the Court at interim stage. He further submitted that though admittedly the petitioner/plaintiff was dispossessed on 6.6.2005 but the application for amendment of the pleadings was filed on 25.4.2007 nerely after 22 months which also established that infact the petitioner was not in possession of the property. He further submitted that if the amendment is allowed the nature of the suit will change as the suit for injunction will now be converted into a suit for possession. The suit for injunction even with the admitted facts by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rendered infructuous. The petitioner, if so advised can file a afresh suit claiming possession of the property. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by learned Court below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. Admittedly, the petitioner has been dispossessed from the property even if it is presumed that she was in possession of the property when the suit was filed. Once she has been dispossessed from the property the relief for injunction has been rendered infructuous especially keeping in view the fact that there was no interim stay in her favour which could prima-facie establish that at the time of filing of suit she was in possession of the property. The petitioner is claiming her relief on the basis of sale deed registered in her favour on May 3, 1994 vide which she purchased 141-1/2 square yard of plot jointly whereas another half was purchased by Raj Rani. Meaning thereby that she can if so advised file a suit for possession of the property which was purchased by her. In the present case also the fact remains that if the amendment is allowed that would mean trial of the suit afresh as it will entail filing of amended plaint and completion of pleadings afresh. In such a situation, in my opinion, no illegality can be found in the impugned order declining prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 21.5.2009 JUDGE Reema