PADAM CHAND Vs. SATISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/petitioner, aggrieved by the order of Civil Judge, Class II, Bhind, dated 13 -2 -1984, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) PLAINTIFF /respondent No. 2 Shantilal filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner and defendant/respondent No.1 alleging that Satish Chand, respondent No.2, bas sub -let the tenanted premises to Padam Chand, defendant/petitioner. He also pleaded the ground of personal requirement. The defendants in a common written statement denied the contents of the plaint and averred that both of them belong to one family and are doing the joint business in the tenanted premises. They denied that the premises have been sub -let. The trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiff completed his side of the evidence. Then defence evidence was to be led. The defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement. Therein, they prayed that the disputed shop was in fact taken on rent by the petitioner himself and the respondent/defendant, who is alleged to be the sub -tenant, was doing the business in the different premises belonging to one Rajaram and the said shop was vacated on compromise. The petitioner also moved an application under O. 13, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, Civil Suit No.71 -A of 1971 of the Court of District Judge was necessary to be called for, for proving an application annexed therein by the said Rajaram, and as the said Rajaram was dead, he intended to prove his signatures by calling the evidence. He is said to have produced along with the application a photostat copy of the applicant Rajaram.

(3.) THE object of R. 17 of O. 6 C.P.C. is that Courts should get at and try the merits of the cases that come before them, and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it can be done without causing injustice to the other side. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaints equally apply to the amendments of the written statement. Thus, the settled principle is that all amendments, which satisfy the two conditions, viz, (i) not working injustice to the other side and (ii) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, ought to be allowed. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. See Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267.