SURINDER KUMAR Vs. BANWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated March 2, 1989, whereby the application for the amendment of the ejectment application, in appeal, was declined.

(2.) THE landlord Surinder Kumar filed the ejectment application against Kishore Singh tenant, deceased. In the ejectment application, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, i.e., his widow and his two sons were impleaded as tenants. It was specifically pleaded in the ejectment application that those were the only legal representatives of the deceased which fact was admitted in the reply filed on their behalf. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed on September 17, 1987. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties filed separate appeals. In the appeal filed by the landlord, he moved an application for amendment of the ejectment application as to implead certain other legal representatives of the deceased tenant as well in order to avoid any technical objection later on. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel forthe parties, I am of the considered opinion that the approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. The amendment is being sought on the ground that later on any technical objection may not be taken by those persons who were not impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Under the circumstances, it is just and proper that those persons who were left out earlier and could not be impleaded because of ignorance should not be impleaded at the appellate stage. It is also necessary to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, if any. Moreover, the ejectment is being sought on the ground of personal necessity. A period of about six years has passed since the filing of the ejectment application. If this amendment at this stage is not allowed, the litigation will be unnecessarily prolonged further on technical objections.