CR No. 1580 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1580 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2011. Darshan Lal .......Petitioner Vs. Ram Jattan ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the plaint. By way of amendment, plaintiff wanted to bring on record the fact that the defendant had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the portion of the suit property and hence, in the prayer clause also it was sought to be incorporated that a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the actual physical possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, may be passed. Vide impugned order dated 17.1.2011, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that CR No. 1580 of 2011 (O&M) -2- plaintiff could not be allowed to amend the plaint as the trial had already commenced. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Vidyabai & Others versus Padmalatha and another” 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 765, wherein it was held that amendment in the pleadings could be allowed before the commencement of the trial. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Reads as under:- Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such 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: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that amendment in the pleadings could not be allowed after the commencement of trial. However, in the present case, the possession of the suit property has been allegedly taken over by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to claim CR No. 1580 of 2011 (O&M) -3- relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as initially, plaintiff had only filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 07, 2011 Gurpreet