IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.R. No. 5194 of 1997 Date of Decision:- 28.4.2009. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .... Petitioner. Versus Mohan Lal Jain and others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the trial Court on 6.5.1997 allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The plaintiff has sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from stopping the supply of Motor spirit and High Speed Diesel to the plaintiff, who is lessee of the site. The learned Trial Court has allowed the amendment. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff has sought to add Para 7(a) to 7(f) in the plaint. The said para graphs relates to the right of the plaintiff to carry on his business and further grounds to challenge the action of the respondents in terminating the lien. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that this Court in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to ad interim injunction after returning a finding that agreement between the petitioner and Harpal Singh, the owner of the site has come to an end and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. It is, thus, contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to plaint so as to C.R. No. 5194 of 1997 -2- raise additional pleas. The plaintiff has sought to add additional grounds in support of his claim for decree of injunction by seeking amendment in the plaint. Whether such grounds are legally maintainable or have no relevancy to the controversy can be raised by the defendant by filing written statement. As and when, any plea in defence is taken the same shall be taken, into consideration by the trial Court by framing appropriate issues. The amendment has been sought at the initial stage of proceedings and does not change the nature of the suit. The findings recorded by this Court in proceedings under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 are findings on an application for injunction alone. Such findings cannot be made basis for deciding other applications during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, on the basis of the order declining injunction, the amendment sought by the plaintiff cannot be declined. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same is dismissed. Petitioner through its counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.5.2009 for further proceedings in accordance with law. April 28, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge