JAGDISH KUMAR PATHAK Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner/defendant has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in Annexure P/1 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner, seeking amendment in the written statement was rejected and on a revision having been preferred by the petitioner, the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that respondents 1 to 8 have filed the suit against the petitioner malafidly without any just cause for eviction on the ground that the suit -shop was required by Jagat Niwas and Vasudeo for starting their business of general merchant and hosiery. It was contended by plaintiffs in para 8 of the plaint that two plaintiffs Jagat Niwas and Vasudeo were presently after purchasing the goods from Delhi were supplying those goods to the business men at Morena on the commission basis, but from the commission income, they were hardly meeting their daily requirements and their family was not being properly maintained in the income. It was also averred that they had no exclusive separate business of their own. The suit was still pending in the trial Court wherein an application was made by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 161 C.P.C. for the amendment in the written statement averring that the plaintiffs bad no case as plaintiff No. 7 Vasudeo was running his own business in the name and style of Durga Sales Agency of which he was the proprietor and that the said business had the turn over in lakhs of rupees and bad its sales tax no. 1486 dated 25.4.88. With such averments, the amendment in the written -statement was prayed for.

(3.) CONSIDERING the other point, regarding the relevant information having been supplied by the plaintiff in their quit notice, it cannot be found to be satisfactory and sufficient. It is not found to be the discloser of those facts or of the information which has necessitated the amendment. The proposed amendment goes at the very root of the litigation as the facts pleaded in the proposed amendment, if proved, may destroy the plaintiffs' case. The amendment is, therefore, held to be necessary for the just decision of the case. The approach adopted by the two Courts below was erroneous. 1993 (2) MPJR 394) on which the reliance is placed by the respondents' counsel are of no assistance to the case of plaintiff -respondents.