C.R. No. 6907 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6907 of 2006 Date of Decision : 19.8.2009 Joginder Pal .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sharda Devi & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Patiala vide which application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the suit was dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application for injunction was allowed. The petitioner pleaded, that during the pendency of the suit the defendant / respondent constructed the elevation / chabutra on the ground and the Ist floor of their house. In view of the subsequent event, the petitioner sought C.R. No. 6907 of 2006 2 amendment of the plaint to add “The Municipal Corporation, Patiala through its Commissioner / Executive Officer” as one of the defendant and to claim relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants / respondent to remove / demolish the wadhra raised on the Ist Floor and 2nd floor of their house No. B-4/444 belonging to defendants No. 1 & 2. The petition was contested primarily on the ground, that no construction, as alleged, was raised by the defendants, during the pendency of the suit. The contempt petition filed for violation of the injunction order was dismissed. That in the counter claim, the Municipal Corporation was already impleaded as a party, therefore, there was no necessity to implead the Municipal Corporation. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground, that a suit for permanent injunction initially filed could not be converted into mandatory injunction, by way of amendment of the plaint. The other ground for rejection was, that the application was moved at belated stage. The learned Court also held, that as per the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment could not be allowed after commencement of trial. On consideration, I find force in this revision petition. The amendment sought was with regard to the subsequent event, which could not have been known to the petitioner at the time of filing of original plaint. The bar under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, was not applicable. The learned trial Court was also in error in holding, that the suit for permanent injunction could not be changed into mandatory C.R. No. 6907 of 2006 3 injunction. The construction raised during the pendency of the suit gave cause of action to amend the suit to effectively decide the dispute between the parties. The finding of the learned trial Court, thus, cannot be sustained. The learned Court is competent to allow amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Once it was pleaded, that the amendment sought was with regard to the subsequent events, the plaintiff had the right to seek amendment, so that the dispute between the parties could be effectively adjudicated. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is allowed, but with no order as to costs. 19.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE