SATYENDRA NARAYAN DIXIT Vs. RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE the lower appellate Court the tenant/appellant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 7, Rule 7 C.P.C. proposing to invite the attention of the Court to three facts; (i) that the parents of the plaintiff No.1 had expired; (ii) that Baldev Prasad, one of the tenants had vacated the accommodation in his possession thereby enlarging the area already in possession of the plaintiffs; and (iii) that a brother of the plaintiff No.1 earlier residing with the plaintiffs had purchased a house and shifted to his own house reducing the burden of accommodation already in possession of the plaintiffs. The application was not supported by any document or affidavit. The plaintiff/respondents filed a prompt reply contesting tooth and nail the correctness of the facts stated in the application. It is pointed out that the mother of plaintiff No.1 alleged by the defendants to have died was still alive. The affidavit of the mother was filed with the reply. The father of the plaintiff No.1 was dead prior to the institution of the suit and hence that averment sought to be urged as subsequent event was neither so nor relevant. Baldev Prasad had not vacated the house and to that effect an affidavit of Baldev Prasad was also need. The brother of plaintiff No.1, namely Dayaram, filed an affidavit stating that he had neither purchased any house nor shifted elsewhere, but he was continuing to stay with the plaintiffs as before.

(2.) THUS it was perceptibly clear that the application was not only mala fide but was outrageously mischievous. The lower appellate Court was duty bound to throw overboard such an application and did not err in rejecting the same. It is true that in an ejectment suit the Court is bound to take note of subsequent events, provided that they are subsequent events, having a material bearing on the result') of the case, also promptly brought to the notice of the Court. The application was bald and vague. It did not particularize any event by stating the date or time of its occurrence. As already noticed all the facts stated in the application were either false or irrelevant. No other point was urged.