IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 688 of 2009 Decided on May 28, 2010. Daulat Ram …Petitioner. Versus M/S H.P. Milk Federation & another ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Adv. For the respondents Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2, Petitioner has filed a suit in the Court of original jurisdiction at Paonta Sahib, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents – defendants from interfering in his land. Suit was filed on 7.9.2007. Written statement was filed by the defendants on 10.1.2008. In the written statement, it was stated that a structure, in the form of tin-shed, had already been raised by the defendants. On an application for temporary injunction, Court ordered maintenance of status quo on 25.3.2008. Issues were framed thereafter and plaintiff was required to lead evidence. He was afforded three opportunities for producing evidence. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. On the third date fixed for evidence, petitioner moved an application for amending his plaint, so as to add relief of mandatory injunction for removal of tin shed, which the defendant, per its written statement dated 10.1.2008, had already erected. 4. Trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment, mainly on the ground that application ought to have been moved immediately after the written statement was filed, in which it was specifically averred that a tin-shed stood constructed by the defendant on the suit land. This could not have been a ground for rejection of the prayer for amending the plaint. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626, has laid down that belated application for amendment, by itself, cannot be a ground for rejection of prayer for amendment of pleadings, especially when the amendment, if not allowed, would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 6. In view of the above stated position, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/-. 7. Petition stands disposed of. May 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.