BAKHSHISH KAUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner aggrieved by the order dated September 1, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, has preferred this revision petition as the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
(2.) HARI Mohan and others had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Gurnam Singh, defendant from closing/blocking the Gali/Street/Passage as fully detailed and described in the plaint. The plaintiffs along with the suit had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The suit as well as the application were contested by the defendant, now petitioner. Certain events took place during the pendency of the suit, as according to the plaintiffs, the defendant had raised certain constructions in utter disregard and violation of the bye- laws and without getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation. By raising certain constructions, the passage was blocked. Therefore, on account of these events having taken place during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint which has been allowed by the trial Court. The petitioner's grievance is that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are changing the entire nature of the suit. In fact, in the original plaint they had been claiming passage/street of 10 ft., whereas now they are seeking injunction relating to an area of 37 ft. of alleged passage shown in the site plan, filed by the defendant. In fact, the plaintiffs have not produced the fresh site plan, which they were required to produce. On the strength of the contradictory plea taken up in the original plaint and in the proposed plaint, a party cannot be allowed to amend the plaint.
(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, I am of the view that there is hardly any merit in the revision petition. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has raised new construction by raising walls and blocking the passage. Though, this fact is denied by the defendant- petitioner, but having regard to the fact that where an event had taken place during the pendency of the suit, then a party should be allowed to amend the plaint so as to resolve the real controversy between the parties and it will not be proper to straightaway reject the claims set up in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In case, it is found that the alleged construction was not made during the pendency of the suit and it already existed, then certainly this fact will be kept in view by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31.1.20001. Revision dismissed.;