IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 212 CR-2411-2024 Date of Decision.:13.05.2025 Jagdish …..Pe**oner Vs. Tek Chand and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the peoner. Dr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Power of a(orney on behalf of respondent No.5 has been filed. 2. Peoner herein is plainff in civil suit bearing No.CS-445-2019 tled “Jagdish v. Tek Chand and Others” pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra. He is aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by trial court, whereby his applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that suit for seeking decree of permanent injuncon was filed by the plainffs to restrain the defendants and their servants from raising any type of construcon over the suit property and also from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plainffs over the suit property or to dispossess them from the suit property in any manner. Learned counsel contends that during pendency of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2411-2024 -2- the suit and despite interim order dated 17.06.2017 of the Court, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained, the defendants raised construcon of the street in the suit property without having any right to do so and thus, violated the status quo order and so, in these circumstances, it was necessary to amend the plaint. By way of amendment peoners- plainffs wanted to incorporate the plea regarding raising of construcon of street by the defendants with the further prayer of mandatory injuncon to direct the defendants to remove the unauthorized construcon of street raised over the suit property. Learned counsel for the peoners submits that declining of the said relief for amending the plaint was not jusfied at all on the part of the trial Court considering the fact that it is subsequent event, which the peoners wanted to incorporate in the amended plaint. 4. Opposing the peon, it is argued by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that plainffs have no concern with the suit property and that in case, any construcon has been raised as alleged by them, they can file an independent suit and so, applicaon for amendment of the plaint has been rightly declined. 5. Having considered submissions of both the sides, this Court finds that impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Specific contenon was made in the applicaon for amendment by the peoners- plainffs that despite grant of status quo by the Court on 17.06.2017, the defendants had raised construcon in the suit property and it is for this reason that amendment of the plaint was necessary. The plainffs thus wanted to incorporate the subsequent events in the plaint and so, in these circumstances it had also become necessary to seek the addional relief of mandatory injuncon. Of course, it will be ma(er of evidence, as to exactly when the construcon was raised and as to whether the plainffs are able to prove their contenon, to be NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2411-2024 -3- incorporated in the amended plaint but rejecon of the applicaon for amendment at this stage, was not at all jusfied. 6. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The applicaon under Order VI Rule 17 CPC moved by the peoner- plainff is allowed. Peon is accepted accordingly. Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law aCer permiDng peoners to file the amended plaint. ( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 13, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.15 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document