(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 31.1.1979 passed by Sri S. Roy, learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 889 of 1972, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for eviction. The original plaintiff, at the time of institution of the suit, was a student. He filed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement stating :
(2.) THE learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's father who was stated to be the real owner in respect of the property in question has since died. The plaintiff has also died in the year 1994. In his place and stead, his other brothers and sisters have been substituted. It appears that the plaintiff had earlier, keeping in view the subsequent events, filed an application for adduction of additional evidence in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such subsequent events were also brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit. However, now an application for amendment of the plaint has been filed.
(3.) MR . Roychowdhury, appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that in view of the statements made in paragraph 5 of the plaint, as noticed hereinabove, it would appear that the original plaintiff had already pleaded requirement of his brothers and sisters, and thus, no reason exists for allowing the amendment of the plaint. Learned Counsel further submits that an application for amendment of plaint should not be allowed after a lapse of 25 years, more so, when the same is sought to be done for the purpose of getting rid of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It has been pointed out that the original plaintiff did not plead about the effect of the Will, although the same was in existence when the suit was filed and the said Will has been probated. According to the learned counsel, in this view of the matter, even no additional evidence is required to be adduced.