C.R. No.2017 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2017 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.7.2010 Harjinder Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS Jagrup Singh ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) C.R. No.2017 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Dhuri, whereby learned Civil Judge allowed the amendment applica- tion moved by the plaintiff, respondent herein. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that initially plaintiff, re- spondent herein, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction re- straining the defendant/petitioner herein, not to obstruct the plaintiff from using the truck in dispute and from taking the possession of the truck in dispute from the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. Plaintiff thereaf- ter moved amendment application seeking amendment in the plaint stating therein that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had taken the possession of the truck forcibly and illegally. Plaintiff wants to incorporate pleadings about the subsequent events taken place during the pendency of suit and wants to add relief of manda- tory injunction directing the defendant to restore the possession of the truck to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court allowed the amendment application vide impugned order dated 3.3.2010. Hence, the petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of the trial. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Gurawara vs. S.K. Sarwagi Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009(1) CCC 1 and in the matter of Vidyabai & others vs. Padma- latha and another reported in 2009(2) SCC 409. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that if pos- session is taken by the defendant, petitioner herein, during the pen- C.R. No.2017 of 2010 (O&M) -3- dency of the suit then amendment seeking relief of possession ought to have been granted to avoid multiplicity of the suit. It is further con- tended that learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while allowing the amendment. 5. Undisputedly, initially plaintiff filed suit for permanent pro- hibitory injunction. Plaintiff wanted to incorporate amendment in the plaint to the effect that during the pendency of the suit property i.e. Truck was taken over by the defendant in his possession forcibly and illegally, hence, plaintiff is entitled for taking back his truck. Subse- quent event/development during the pendency of the suit must be al- lowed to be incorporated in the pleadings just to avoid multiplicity of the suit. In the opinion of this Court, cause of action or nature of the suit will not change by incorporating subsequent events and proper relief. In view of this, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 3.3.2010. 6. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 19th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish