KESHO RAM PASSEY Vs. P C TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 27th of November, 1947, the plaintiff brought the present suit foe ejecting the defendant on the ground that he had sublet it to a certain named individual and for failure to pay rent. On the 29th of July, 1949, the trial Court dismissed the suit. There was an appeal from the order of dismissal and on the 3rd of August, 1950, the Court of Appeal remanded the case. When the case came to the trial Court on remand, on the 15th of January, 1951 the plaintiff applied to the trial Court to amend the plaint. The amendment sought to be made was to add two further grounds for ejecting the defendant, the grounds being that in 1950 the defendant had sublet the premises to a named person different to the one to whom he had (sic)ublet in 1947 and that structural alterations and additions were made to the premises on a date unspecified but obviously from the context long after 1947 and sometime in 1950. The trial Court refused the amendment. The plaintiff has come up for revision.

(2.) In my opinion this application is not an application for amendment proper. This application is an application to add causes of action which did not exist at the time when the suit was brought in 1947. The defendant in order to meet the new grounds will have to adduce evidence on different points altogether which did not exist at the time when the suit was brought. This would unfairly prejudice him. If the plaintiff has a grievance against the defendant for giving him other causes, he must pursue his remedy by another suit. His application was, in my opinion, rightly dismissed by the trial Court. This revision petition is dismissed with costs,

(3.) After I had dictated this judgment I have come across the case. 'ESHELBY v. FEDERATED EUROPEAN BANK, LTD.' (1933) 1 K B 423, Which supports me. The headnote of that case runs as follows: