Judgment:
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CR No.3167 of 2014 Decided on 08.7.2014 Inderpal Mehta --Petitioner versus Natha Singh --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain,J.(Oral) This revision is filed by the defendant against whom the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain him from digging basement which was causing damage to his property.
The defendant, after appearance, filed written statement and alleged that basement has already been constructed.
With this averment made in the written statement, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to add prayer of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to demolish basement on the ground that he has constructed the same without getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Kot Kapura and also prayed for damages.
The said application has been allowed by the trial Court on the ground that the suit is at the initial stage as issues are yet to be framed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application because the plaintiff has filed an application for converting his suit from permanent injunction to mandatory injunction which cannot be done as per law.
However, he has C.R.No.3167 of 2014 -2- not cited any law to this effect that a suit filed for permanent injunction cannot be converted into a suit for mandatory injunction.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the trial Court.
When the suit for permanent injunction was filed, the plaintiff was facing a threat by the action of the defendant who was digging basement while constructing his house, resulting into damage and loss to the adjoining house of the plaintiff, but as soon as, the defendant filed his written statement and alleged that construction has already been made, the plaintiff has rightly converted his suit from permanent injunction to mandatory injunction so that mischief caused by the defendant may be redressed and the plaintiff may be compensated for the loss caused to his property.
Moreover, the suit is at the initial stage because issues are yet to be framed, so the plaintiff has converted his suit from permanent injunction to mandatory injunction, which has rightly been allowed by the trial Court.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
08.7.2014 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge