JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India by filing this revision petition impugning order dated 16.03.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri thereby allowing application Annexure P-1 moved by plaintiffs/respondents for amendment of plaint. 2. In the original plaint, plaintiffs sought declaration that they are entitled to passage of two gathas width in western side of Khasra No.87//10/1 and also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the said passage. 3. In amendment application Annexure P-1, the plaintiffs alleged that since there was no temporary injunction, the defendants taking benefit thereof demolished the disputed passage and included it in remaining part of Khasra No.87//10/1. Accordingly by amendment, the plaintiffs have also sought relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the disputed passage. 4. Defendants by filing reply Annexure P-2 opposed the amendment application alleging that in their written statement dated 06.12.2006 itself, the defendants had alleged that there was no passage at the spot in Khasra No.87//10/1 and there was watercourse on the western dol of the said khasra number and Patwari could be appointed as Local Commissioner to report about the said existing position at the spot. It was alleged that the plaintiffs by amendment want to create evidence for restoration of passage, which was never in existence. 5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3 has allowed amendment application moved by plaintiffs for amendment of plaint. Said order is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of the defendants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the disputed passage was never in existence and the plaintiffs by seeking amendment of plaint want to create evidence for restoration of the alleged passage, which never existed. The contention cannot be accepted. Even after amendment of plaint, the plaintiffs have to prove that the disputed passage existed and have also to prove further that the said passage was demolished on 14.04.2007 during pendency of the suit. Mere permission to the plaintiffs to amend their plaint does not mean that their claim has been accepted by the Court. 8. Proposed amendment of plaint is based on alleged subsequent event which took place during pendency of the suit. Mere permission to the plaintiffs to amend their plaint does not mean that their claim has been accepted by the Court. 8. Proposed amendment of plaint is based on alleged subsequent event which took place during pendency of the suit. Consequently amendment of plaint to plead the same has to be allowed. In addition to it, the suit is at initial stage and trial had not commenced when amendment application was moved. Consequently for this reason also, amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed because law of amendment of pleadings is liberal. Even according to amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment of plaint can be allowed at any stage before commencement of trial. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find that proposed amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed by 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 devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------