1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2432 of 2011. Date of Decision: 4.5.2011 *** Ranbir .. Petitioner VS. Madan & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. It was his case that initially he was in possession of the suit land being lessee by dint of lease deed dated 7.1.2004. Later he purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 8.11.2005, but the respondents started interfering in his possession, necessitating him to file the suit for injunction against the respondents. After filing of the written statement and framing of issues, the plaintiff came up with the plea that despite the status quo order the defendants have forcibly taken the possession of the suit property from him and accordingly he wants to incorporate the said fact in the body of the plaint and also to amend the relief clause for restoration of his possession from the defendants, instead of relief of permanent injunction, as claimed earlier. Reply of the application was filed and after the contest, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2010, which has been impugned in the instant revision petition. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who refused to accept the service of summons and accordingly vide order dated 28.4.2011 they were proceeded against ex-parte. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book carefully. The application of the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed on two counts, firstly, that the trial has commenced and the plaintiff has not disclosed that despite due diligence he could not have raised the proposed 2 amendment before commencement of trial and secondly, the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is equally well settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. In the case of K.S. Sivadas Vs. Lakshmi and another AIR 2003 NOC 403 (Kerala), where the defendants trespassed into the property and demolished the same in violation of injunction order, during the pendency of the suit, the Court while allowing the amendment of addition of relief of recovery of possession, mesne profits and damages for demolition on account of event occurring subsequent to institution of suit, held that the same does not change the nature of suit. In the case of Beant Kaur Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others, 2001(3) All India Land Laws Reporter Vol. 67, page 496, somewhat in similar circumstances, while relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Harnek Singh Vs. Pritam Singh, 2000(1) PLJ 107, this Court allowed the plaintiff to carry out the amendment of relief from permanent injunction to declaration as well as for possession. It was held as follows:- “8. In some what similar case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land after the institution of the suit, he was dispossessed. While disposing of Civil Revision No. 2672 of 1993 reported as Harnek Singh Vs. Pritam Singh, 2000(1) PLJ 107, the amendment was allowed by observing that if the Court comes to the conclusion that 3 on the day when the suit was instituted, plaintiff was in possession, he can be ordered to be put in possession in the event of the suit being decreed and the proposed amendment would not pre-judice the defendants at all in their defence.” In the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanswamy & Sons & others 2010(1) RCR(Civil) 27, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the basic test which should govern the court’s discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment is the satisfaction of the Court, whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy or not? and the other important condition is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to other side; ordinarily if other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice. In the instant case the plaintiff has come up with the specific plea that he is in possession of the suit property initially as a lessee but later become owner of the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 8.11.2005. Though the parties were directed to maintain status quo but according to the plaintiff he was forcibly dispossessed during the suit and he also filed the contempt petition against the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, are claiming their possession over the suit property by filing the counter claim. The events, which are sought to be incorporated are subsequent to the filing of the suit and hence, in view of the legal position, referred to above, the plaintiff would not have denied the relief of amendment, especially when no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants, who can well be compensated with costs. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 is set aside. The order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000, which shall be paid to the defendants in equal share, prior to taking on record the amended plaint. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 04,2011 Jiten