IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.346 of 2006 Date of decision: 07.03.2008. Sh.Rattan Chand and another …..Petitioners -Versus- Sh.Kishan Chand and another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For respondent-1: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the two orders dated 10.4.2006 and 18.5.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Una, Vide order dated 10.4.2006 the learned trial Court had given police assistance to the plaintiff-respondent to ensure that the orders of the Court are obeyed. Vide order dated 18th May, 2006 the learned Civil Judge has permitted the plaintiff to file amended plaint and has directed the respondent No.3 to file written statement. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the present petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the original defendants) for permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from taking exclusive possession and ousting the plaintiff from the joint possession of the suit land and from changing the nature of the suit land by raising any construction etc. thereon. A stay order was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 2 According to the plaintiff, despite stay order having been passed the defendants continued to raise such construction and therefore the plaintiff sought police assistance which was granted. I find no error in the order dated 10th April, 2006. Every Court has the power, and in fact a duty is cast upon every Court, to ensure that its orders are complied with. A Local Commissioner had been appointed prior to the passing of this order who had stated that construction was being raised on the spot. Therefore, the trial Court had passed a legal and valid order to ensure that the stay order of the Court be implemented in letter and spirit. According to the original defendants the construction, if any, was being raised by proforma respondent Santosh Kumari who is the wife of petitioner No.2 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1. The case set-up is that she was raising the construction in her independent right. There is some dispute as to whether some conflicting stands have been taken by the defendants but I am not going into this question at this stage. Suffice to say that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the respondent No.2 as defendant No.3 in the suit. This application was allowed vide order dated 6th May, 2006 and the said order has not been challenged by the party and has attained finality. It appears that after the order was passed, the plaintiff amended the suit making certain allegations in paras 4-A to 4-C. This amended suit was filed without permission of the trial Court. Even in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 no prayer had been made for amendment of the plaint. It is well settled law that amendment can be made only after seeking leave of the Court. The learned trial Court had gravely erred in taking the amended plaint on record without there being any order allowing the amendment of the plaint. Consequently the petition is allowed to the limited extent that the amended plaint shall not be taken on record. From a perusal of the averments 3 made in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 and the orders passed thereon it appears that it will be necessary to amend the plaint. The plaintiff may, therefore, move appropriate application in this behalf before the learned trial Court who shall call for the reply and decide the same within two months of the filing of the application. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21st April, 2008. The Registry is directed to send a notice to Sh.A.K.Rana, Advocate appearing for Santosh Kumari before the trial Court to the effect that the matter shall be listed before the trial Court on 21st April, 2008. This notice shall be served upon Santosh Kumari through her counsel by the trial Court well before the next date. CMP No.715 of 2006: In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is also disposed of. March 7, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge