(1.) - This is a revisional application by the defendant-petitioner against an order allowing amendment of the plaint in a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff/opposite-party against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and default in payment of rent and unauthorised transfer of the suit-premises by the defendant. The plaintiff has alleged inter alia that the suit-premises were let out to the defendant company on the clear stipulation that the same would be used by the defendant only as the residence of its Managing Director Amarjit Singh, but in violation of such stipulation the defendant-company parted with the possession thereof in favour of some other person and the premises were no longer in possession of that Managing Director Amarjit.
(2.) Written Statement on behalf of the defendant has been filed by the said Amarjit Singh alleging that the defendant Gold Leaf Tea Co, is not a company registered under the Companies Act, but is a proprietary concern of the said Amarjit Singh and. the suit-premises have been let out by the plaintiff to and in favour of the said Amarjit Singh who is the proprietor of the Gold Leaf Tea Co. and that Amarjit Singh is still in possession thereof; The plaintiff has thereafter filed an application for the amendment of the plaint to make Amarjit and his alleged proprietary concern, parties to the suit for ejectment on the allegation that there was no tenancy created in favour of Amritraj Singh or his alleged proprietory concern Gold Leaf Tea Co. and that after the defendant-company parted with possession in favour of third party. Amarjit had again forcibly entered into and taken possession of the premises. The proposed amendment having been allowed by the impugned order, the same has been assailed before us in this revision.
(3.) The circumscribed revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has now, been further narrowed by the Proviso added to Section 115(1) by the Amendment Act of 1976 in respect of orders "made in the course of a suit or proceeding". Such an order, in order to warrant revision, must not only involve a jurisdictional issue as specified in one of the three Clauses in Section 115(1) but must also, under the newly added Proviso, satisfy one of the two further conditions mentioned therein. These two alternative conditions are that the order must be such that - (a) if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit, or (b) if allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The first condition is not obviously satisfied in this case because even if the impugned order was made in favour of the petitioner and the application for amendment was rejected, that would not have finally disposed of the suit. Nor the second condition can be regarded to have been satisfied occasioning any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the defendant for the impugned order has only allowed the plaintiff to join Amarjit Singh and his alleged proprietary concern as parties to this suit and it is the defendant's own case in the written statement that they are in possession of the suit premises.