MADHUKAR SHANTARAM TAMHANE Vs. RAGHUNATH DWARKANATH RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 13th July, 1992 of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Int. Notice No.1135 of 1992 in R.A.E.Suit No.5306 of 1984 allowing the application of the respondents (plaintiff) for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs (respondents herein) had filed a suit against the defendants (applicants herein) for eviction from the suit premises. One of the grounds for eviction of the defendants was bonafide requirement of the plaintiff no.3. In the pleadings it was stated by the plaintiffs that the said premises were urgently required for use of the plaintiff no.3 who was suffering from severe heart ailment and was advised by the doctors not to climb the stairs. In other words, in the plaint, as originally filed, the need of the plaintiff no.3 only was pleaded. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff no.3 died. THE plaintiffs filed an application for substitution of the heirs of the plaintiff no.3, which was allowed. THE plaintiffs thereafter filed another application for amendment of the plaint to plead the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff no.1. THE case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiff no.1 had also been suffering from heart trouble. But as at the time of filing of the suit, the requirement of the plaintiff no.3 was more pressing and urgent, only his requirement was pleaded requirement of the plaintiff no.1 was not pleaded. As the plaintiff no.3 died during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs applied for amendment of plaint to incorporate in the pleadings the requirement of the said premises by the plaintiff no.1 as a ground for eviction of the defendants. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court. THE defendants have come to this Court by way of this revision application to challenge the above order of the trial court allowing the amendment of the pleadings by the plaintiffs.

(3.) ORDER 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confers powers on the Court to allow the amendments of the pleadings, has been construed by the Supreme Court in number of cases and the well settled-legal position is that amendment of the pleadings should be allowed unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side. It is also well settled that even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially, the shortcomings can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure the rights accrued to the other party. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484, Haridas Aldas Thadani v. Godrej Custom Kermani, 1984 1 SCC 668 and the decision of this Court in Ashok v. Gaurammabai 1994 Mh.L.J.286.