GURNAM SINGH Vs. HARI MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.