1. Vide order, under challenge, application of the respondents, to amend their plaint, was granted by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 1998. It is further admitted by the parties that in that suit, parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 23.12.1995. Thereafter, admittedly, one application was moved by the respondents, under Order 39 Rule 2a of CPC, on the ground that as the petitioner has dismantled the water course, so he has violated the status quo order passed on 3.1.1996, prayer was made to take suitable action against him. That application was dismissed. Immediately, when that order, was violated, no attempt was made to get the plaint amended. Application to amend plaint was filed in the year 2003, wherein, it was prayed that the respondents be allowed to pray for issuance of decree for mandatory injunction, to direct the petitioner to restore water course, in its original position, which was dismantled on 3.1.1996. Without giving finding, as to whether at this belated stage, suit for mandatory injunction was competent or not, amendment was allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon jud