V J TRIVEDI Vs. VEENABEN HASUKHBHAI PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff who instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 2208 of 1983 in the court of learned Judges Small Cause Court Ahmedabad against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed eviction of the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement under the provision or Sec. 13(1)(g) of the bombay Rent Act. The defendant filed written statement and raised the dispute with regard to standard rent.

(2.) During the course of the proceedings in December 1988 the plaintiff submitted an application for amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) which was objected by the defendant by filing application Ex. 23. After hearing the parties the trial court granted the application Ex. 23. Being aggrieved by the said order the original defendant-petitioner herein has come up before this court in revision under Sec. 115 of the Code.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances and considering celebrated principles of law relating to amendment in the pleadings this court has no hesitation in finding that the present revision is without any substance. The scope of powers of this court under Sec. 115 of the Code in a revision like one on hand is very much circumscribed. Nothing has been successfully pointed-out which would warrant interference of this court with the order passed by the trial court granting application Ex. 23 for amendment in the pleadings. It cannot be said that the amendment of such nature would change entire basis of the suit and frame of the suit. The trial court has considered this aspect also. The suit for eviction came to be filed under Bombay Rent Act for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement under Sec. 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act which was challenged in the written statement. The plaintiff submitted an application for amendment stating that Para 3 of the plaint is not properly drafted and Para 2-A was sought to be added within the parameter of Sec. 13(1)(g). Considering the nature of amendment sought for it can safely be said that the trial court has rightly granted the application Ex. 23 for amendment in; the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. Discretion exercised by the trial court could not be shown to be unreasonable unjust and perverse. With the result there is no merits in this revision. Accordingly this revision is required to be dismissed.