MOST SUMITRA DEVI Vs. R M ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision application at the instance of the plaintiffs petitioners is directed against the order dated 17.12.1996 passed by the Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur, in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992 refusing the prayer for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiffs petitioners filed Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1992 in the Court of Munsif (East) Muzaffarpur for a decree for eviction on the ground of default. Originally the suit was filed by one Ramdeo Choudhury, who died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs have been substituted. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that the suit premises detailed in Schedule I of the plaint appertaining to Revisional Survey Plot No. 1764, Khata No. 667, was the exclusive property of the plaintiffs which was let out to the defendants on monthly rental of Rs. 250/ . The defendants executed a Kirayanama dated 1.1.1974, whereby relationship of landlord and tenant was created. The plaintiffs' further case is that Schedule I property was allotted to the original plaintiff by virtue of oral partition by metes and bounds, as evidenced by Memorandum of partition dated 15.2.1976, duly signed by the parties and since then the original plaintiff had been in exclusive possession of the suit premises. It is alleged that since January, 1991, the defendants Tailed to pay the rent and became defaulter and made themselves liable for eviction.

(3.) THE suit was ultimately taken up for hearing and parties led their evidence. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit remained pending for quite some time at the argument stage and ultimately the plaintiffs were advised to introduce the subsequent event, i.e. breach of terms of tenancy for the reason that the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amending the plaint by introducing the detailed facts about acquisition of the suit premises by the plaintiffs and also adding one more ground of breach of terms of tenancy for their eviction. The defendants Opposite Parties opposed the prayer for amendment by filing rejoinder stating, inter alia, that the said amendment will change the nature of the suit and it will cause serious injury to the defendants. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the application and refused to allow the prayer for amendment of the plaint.