JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Raj Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) moved by plaintiff for amendment of plaint. 2. In the original plaint, the plaintiff has sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the suit plot. 3. In the amendment application, it has been alleged that since temporary injunction was not granted, the defendant-respondent, during pendency of the suit, has raised construction in the suit plot, and therefore, relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the said construction is also to be claimed by amending the plaint along with other necessary consequential amendments. 4. Defendant-respondent resisted the application by filing reply (Annexure P-2). Averments made in the application were controverted. 5. Learned trial court, vide impugned order, dismissed the plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint. Hence this revision by the plaintiff. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that proposed amendment has been necessitated by construction raised during pendency of the suit, and therefore, the same should be allowed. 8. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that amendment application is highly belated because even the plaintiff, in his testimony recorded on 08.04.2009, admitted the existence of the construction, whereas amendment application (Annexure P-1) is dated 13.04.2011 i.e. the application was moved two years after the plaintiff admitted the existence of construction in the suit plot. It was also argued that suit for relief of mandatory injunction has become time barred. It was also pointed out that plaintiff had been granted sufficient opportunities for his evidence including last opportunity, when this amendment application was moved. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had just started construction in the suit plot when the plaintiff filed the injunction suit for the said reason. However, since temporary injunction was not granted, the defendant raised construction in the suit plot during pendency of the suit. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had just started construction in the suit plot when the plaintiff filed the injunction suit for the said reason. However, since temporary injunction was not granted, the defendant raised construction in the suit plot during pendency of the suit. The defendant in her reply (Annexure P-2) has not even specifically pleaded that the construction referred to by the plaintiff in the amendment application had been raised before the filing of the suit, although the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the amendment application that the construction had been raised during pendency of the suit. At the same time, amendment application filed by the petitioner is highly belated. However, the amendment application could not be dismissed merely on the ground of delay, for which the plaintiff could be burdened with costs to compensate the defendant-respondent. 11. As regards plea of bar of limitation to claim the relief of mandatory injunction, the defendant would be at liberty to raise this plea in written statement to amended plaint and suit for the said relief shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date, the amendment application (Annexure P-1) was moved. 12. As regards opportunities to lead evidence, already granted to the plaintiff, after amendment of plaint, the plaintiff would not be granted more than two effective opportunities for his remaining evidence. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that proposed amendment of plaint should be allowed on payment of costs and subject to the conditions mentioned herein before. Impugned order of the trial court is illegal and unsustainable. 14. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order of the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-1) moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint is allowed and plaintiff is permitted to make the proposed amendment in the plaint, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs precedent and also subject to other conditions mentioned herein before. ---------0.B.S.0------------