ASHOK KUMAR SAW Vs. YASHOMATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 15.12.1997 passed by the Munsif, Khunti, in Eviction Title Suit No. 5 of 1995, whereby the application filed by the defendant -petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected and prayer for amendment of the written statement was refused.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the question are that the plaintiff -opposite party filed Eviction Title Suit No. 5 of 1995 before the Court of Munsif, Khunti, for eviction of the defendant -petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity for her son for engaging him in business in the suit premises. The defendant -petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The learned Munsif after hearing the parties, decreed the aforesaid suit in terms of the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1996. The defendant -petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree filed Civil Revision application being C.R. No. 320 of 1996 (R) under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. This Court in term of the judgment and order dated 14.1.1997 affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the issue of personal necessity but remitted the case to the Court below on a limited question whether the partial eviction of the suit premises will serve the need of the plaintiff. After remand the parties led evidence as directed by this Court but in the meantime an application was filed by the defendant -petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement by introducing certain subsequent event allegedly took place i.e., the plaintiff's husband recovered possession of one shop premises from his tenant where the plaintiff's son would be settled in the business and, therefore, the personal requirement of the plaintiff, if any vanished. The said amendment was opposed by -the plaintiff -opposite party by filing a rejoinder. The learned Munsif after hearing the parties passed the impugned order and rejected the amendment petition filed by the defendant -petitioner and hence this civil revision.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the Court below as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below misdirected itself in law in rejecting the petition for amendment of the written statement. According to the learned Counsel even if the matter was pending before the Court below for deciding limited question of partial eviction, the Court below was bound to take notice of the subsequent event and amendment sought for ought to have been allowed. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in the case of H. Shiva Rao v. Ceilia Pereira and in the case of Kshitish Chandra Base v. Commissioner of Ranchi and also a decision passed in C.R. No. 148 of 1995 (R).