CR No.2792 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2792 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 17, 2009 Tarlochan Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Khushi Ram and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 22.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. Plaintiff-petitioner Tarlochan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants for putting lintel on the Wall marked W1 and W2 on the eastern side of his house. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. Vide CR No.2792 of 2005(O&M) 2 impugned order dated 22.4.2005, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants had disobeyed the order passed by the Court directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding putting of lintel on the Wall. Since the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed and the defendants, thereafter, had put lintel on the Wall, hence, the plaintiff wanted to bring the said fact by way of amendment. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition is devoid of any merits. Petitioner has filed the suit claiming himself to be an exclusive owner of the Wall marked W1 and W2 in the site plan. The trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to lintel of the Wall in question. The petitioner failed to establish the fact that despite the stay order, the defendants had put lintel on the Wall on 14.12.1995 and raised construction of about 2½'' in height. Consequently, the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2005. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the application seeking amendment of the plaint was liable to be dismissed. The defendants had almost concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW3. It was further observed that the application seeking amendment of the plaint had not been made in good faith and that the application had been filed just to delay the proceedings. The impugned order does not suffer from any material CR No.2792 of 2005(O&M) 3 illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge September 17, 2009 arya