IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5363 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.8.2010 Jasbir Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Hardev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.5.2010 vide which the prayer for amendment of the plaint made by the petitioners has been declined. Initially, the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents seeking to restrain them from interfering in their possession. During the pendency of the suit they filed an application for amendment to convert the suit from permanent injunction to that of possession. The following amendment was sought to be incorporated in the plaint by the petitioners :- “i) In the heading of the plaint, the following words be allowed to be inserted : “jurisdiction valued for the relief of possession Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lakhs only)”. C.R.No.5363 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ii) In the heading at the end the following line may also be allowed to be inserted : “and also the relief of possession directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs”. iii) That in para no.8 of the plaint, the following words may be allowed to be inserted : “for relief of possession of Rs.2,00,000/- is Rs.4296/- and in the fourth line instead of Rs.33/- the word Rs.4329/- be allowed to be substituted. iv) That in para No.13 of the plaint, the following words be allowed to be added :- “and the defendants be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house to the plaintiffs.” The application for amendment was declined by the learned trial court. If the aforesaid amendment is to be seen, then it is clear the petitioners had made no attempt to plead as to how their possession was disturbed during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. It is to be noticed that when the suit for permanent injunction is filed then impliedly the person filing so admits his possession and proceeds on the said premises. But if the prayer for possession of the property has been made then it has to be specifically pleaded as to how and when he was dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings. No such pleadings are evident from the amendment which is sought to be incorporated by the petitioners. C.R.No.5363 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned order when the basic ingredients required to be pleaded have not been pleaded by the petitioners. Dismissed. 25.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss