IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1215 of 2010. Date of Decision : 6.4.2010. Sanjay ......Petitioner Versus Nand lal & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J. This plaintiff's revision is directed against the order dated November 28th, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, whereby, his application for amendment of plaint was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 2 and 3 from installing a tower in the field held jointly by him and defendant No.1. Through the instant application, the petitioner-plaintiff sought amendment of the suit from permanent injunction to that of mandatory injunction on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants No.2 and 3 had installed the tower and as such, they should now be directed to remove it from the suit land. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application on the grounds (i) that per the report of Local Commissioner, the tower was already in existence prior to filing of the suit for permanent injunction; (ii) that the proposed amendment shall change the nature of the suit; (iii) that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that tower had already been in existence and; (iv) that issues in this case were framed on April 24th, 2007 and thereafter, the plaintiff availed six opportunities for leading evidence but he did not lead evidence. 4. Initially, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 and 3 from installing the tower knowing fully well that tower was already in existence. Now, he wants Civil Revision No.1215 of 2010. (2) to in fact convert the suit from permanent injunction to mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.2 and 3 to remove the tower. Since the tower was already in existence, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for mandatory injunction in the first instance. Even after filing the suit, the plaintiff slumbered in the matter. After availing a large number of opportunities to lead evidence, he chose to amend the plaint radically. The conduct does not appear to be bona-fides, a sine qua non for imparting justice. 5. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 6.4.2010. SN