JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 3279-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 3280-C-II of 2012 : 2. Application is allowed and documents Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : 3. Defendants no.21 to 24 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 09.01.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) of respondent no.1-plaintiff for amendment of plaint. 4. Plaintiff instituted suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land. In application Annexure P-2, the plaintiff alleged that during pendency of the suit, defendants in connivance with police, got initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) and got appointed Receiver, who has taken possession of the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiff, by way of amendment of plaint, wants to seek relief of possession of the suit land also. Besides it, another formal amendment was also sought. The plaintiff was minor when the suit was filed. He has now become major. Amendment to this effect was also sought. 5. Defendants no.21 to 24/petitioners, by filing reply (Annexure P-3), opposed the application for amendment of plaint. However, appointment of Receiver under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and taking of possession of the suit land by Receiver was not disputed. 6. Learned trial court, vide impugned order, allowed amendment of plaint, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.21 to 24 have filed the instant revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the petitioners contended that plaintiff was not granted relief of temporary injunction, and therefore, he was not in possession of the suit land, when the suit was filed. However, merely on the basis of order passed regarding temporary injunction, it cannot be held that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land at the time of filing of suit. On the contrary, for deciding the question of temporary injunction, only prima facie or tentative view is formed, which, however, has no bearing on final adjudication of the suit. 9. Counsel for the petitioners also contended that proposed amendment of plaint has been sought after commencement of trial, and therefore, could not be permitted. On the contrary, for deciding the question of temporary injunction, only prima facie or tentative view is formed, which, however, has no bearing on final adjudication of the suit. 9. Counsel for the petitioners also contended that proposed amendment of plaint has been sought after commencement of trial, and therefore, could not be permitted. This contention is also bereft of any merit because proposed amendment of plaint has been necessitated by subsequent event and the same could not be pleaded in the original plaint. It is undisputed that Receiver has been appointed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. during pendency of the suit and Receiver has consequently taken possession of the suit land. It is thus manifest that proposed amendment of plaint has been necessitated by the said subsequent event and has, therefore, been rightly allowed by the trial court. 10. There is thus no infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly found to be meritless and is dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ------------