IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.418 of 2011 Decided on: November 1, 2011 Amar Singh ..Petitioner Versus Man Singh .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering in his possession over immovable property, described in the plaint. He also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. That application was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, while main suit was still pending, petitioner filed another application, under Section 151 CPC, alleging that respondent-defendant had dispossessed him from the suit property and prayed for issuance of a temporary mandatory injunction to restore the possession of the portion of suit Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É property that had allegedly been encroached upon by the respondent-defendant. That application has been dismissed, with the observation that the petitioner has not been able to show that he has been dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit or after passing of the order of temporary injunction, on application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of trial Court and directing the respondent to restore the possession of the portion of suit property, from which he has allegedly been dispossessed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Since the matter is still at trial stage and unless evidence is recorded, it cannot be said, with certainty, whether the petitioner has been dispossessed from any portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The right course is that the petitioner amends his plaint and seeks relief of possession and/or mandatory injunction for the restoration of possession of that portion of suit land from which he has allegedly been dispossessed, during the pendency of suit. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. November 1, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.