Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramji Dass And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 October, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 5856 of 2010
Date of Decision: 08.10.2010
Ramji Dass and another
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present : Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advo
for the petitioner
Mr. Brahamjit Singh, S.D.E. , PWD, B&R Malerkotla
Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the respondent - State
Mr. G.S. Chahel, Advocate
for respondents No. 4 and 5
ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiff-petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Dhuri whereby an application seeking amendment in the plaint was dismissed.
The brief facts of the present case are that initially plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants not to make any encroachment in any manner, in any part of the suit property. Ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Plaintiff-petitioner, thereafter, moved an amendment application seeking permission to incorporate relief of possession in the suit saying even after injunction order defendants have encroached upon the plaintiff's disputed property. Amendment application is rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order. C.R. No. 5856 of 2010 2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
If during the pendency of the permanent prohibitory injunction suit, defendants enters into the possession of the suit property, in that event plaintiff should be permitted to incorporate relief of possession in the plaint. Asking the plaintiff to file fresh suit for possession would amount to multiplicity of the suit on the same facts and circumstances. All the reliefs available should be allowed to be claimed by way of amendment.
Petition is allowed.
Impugned order is set aside.
Amendment application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner stands allowed.
(ALOK SINGH) 08.10.2010 JUDGE reena