BAKHSHISH KAUR, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the underground pipeline installed in his land. The suit was contested by the defendants. The parties had led evidence in support of their respective claims. When the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that he may be permitted to lead additional evidence and also Local Commissioner may be appointed to demarcate the land in dispute. The prayer on these terms was declined by the trial Court vide impugned order which has given rise to the present revision petition.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Saron, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that initially a suit for permanent injunction was filed and later on during the pendency of the suit, it was amended for mandatory injunction because the defendant had laid the underground pipes passing through the fields of the plaintiff. It is also contended that the respondent has violated the order of the status-quo ordered by the trial Court by laying the underground pipes. Thus, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was filed and the proceedings in that application are pending.
(3.) IT is admitted case of the petitioner that he had filed two applications for additional evidence - one was filed in the contempt petition under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the code and the other was filed in the suit which was dismissed and the same is under challenge.;