Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this revision petition is for setting aside the order, dated 5.10.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint, by adding the relief of mandatory injunction.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was dispossessed by the respondent, during the pendency of the suit. He, therefore, filed an application for restoration of possession, which was allowed, vide order, dated 20.2.2004. In a revision, namely, CR No. 482 of 2005, filed by the respondent, though the order, dated 20.2.2004 was affirmed but as the respondent was in possession, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial by granting limited opportunities to lead evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint by adding a prayer for grant of the relief of a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to deliver possession. The application has been dismissed by observing that the petitioner has failed to establish the date of his dispossession, the amendment sought would alter the nature of the suit, and the prayer for restoration of possession has become time barred.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, however, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any error. The petitioner has failed to establish the date of his dispossession and the learned trial Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the application. It is asserted that the grant of the amendment prayed would alter the nature of the suit from one for grant of a permanent injunction to one for grant of a mandatory injunction. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.;