GAMMON INDIA LTD Vs. ASHWIN DAFTARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the 1 earned advocate for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 7th february, 2001 passed in Int. Notice No. 219 of 2001 in R. A. E. Suit No. 342 of 1978 by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. By the impugned order, the application for amendment to the plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on three grounds. Firstly that the recording of evidence of the petitioner / original plaintiff had been already concluded on 7th December, 2000. Secondly that the particulars which are sought to be disclosed cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of law comprised under Order VI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thirdly that there is unsatisfactory delay in filing the application for amendment to the plaint.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit was filed for eviction of the respondents on various grounds including the ground of bonafide need of the premises for the petitioner/ original plaintiff. Obviously, the plaintiff is required to prove that the need of the petitioner in that regard is reasonable and bonafide. It is undisputed fact that the pleadings in relation to the need of the premises for the petitioner did not give All the details and particulars about the requirements of the premises for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner. The application which was filed by the petitioner for amendment to the pleadings, undoubtedly, disclosed various particulars regarding need of the premises for self occupation thereof by the petitioner. Reply thereto also discloses abjection to the amendment to be carried out tmainly being related to the stage at which the application was filed.