IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3166 of 2010. Date of Decision : 13.5.2010. Raghbir Singh & another .....Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. NAWAB SINGH J. This defendants No.1 and 2's revision is directed against the order dated April 13th, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff was allowed. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for twofold relief: (i) that he be declared owner of 1/3rd share in the electric connection of 5 HP motor of a tubewell installed in the land mentioned in the head note 'A' of the plaint (ii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from shifting the electric connection from point 'A' to 'B'. 3. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regard to electric connection till the final decision of the suit. After passing of the aforesaid order of status-quo, defendants shifted the electric connection from point 'A' to 'B' which necessitated the plaintiffs to file application for amendment of the plaint. 4. During the course of hearing, petitioners could not prove by any prima-facie documentary evidence that the electric connection was already in existence at point 'B' and not at point 'A' as pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendants had shifted the electric connection from point 'A' to 'B' after passing of the order of the status-quo by the trial Court. In M/s. M. Laxmi and Co. vs. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande & another AIR Civil Revision No.3166 of 2010. (2) 1971 SC 171, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that where, subsequent to the institution of the suit, events happen which give the plaintiff a new cause of action for the relief claimed or the right to a new or additional relief he will, as a general rule, be allowed to amend the plaint by moulding it in an appropriate manner. Here in the case in hand, the electric connection was allegedly shifted from point 'A' to 'B after institution of the suit which of course, gave the plaintiff a new cause of action for the relief claimed. 5. In view of above, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity calling for interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 13.5.2010. SN