NARENDRA NATH GOVIL Vs. NARESH CHAND GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will decide Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1019/1989 and 1020 / 1989, by this common order.

(2.) The plaintiff non-petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment and injunction against the petitioner tenant. Issues were framed in the suit on 1/08/1984. The evidence of the plaintiff had also been completed. Five witnesses of the defendant also stood examined. However, cross-examination of the petitioner could not be completed on account of his illness. On 3/05/1989 the petitioner had filed an application supported by an affidavit under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statement. By this proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to insert the alleged subsequent events tending to show that the plaintiff-non-petitioner did not require the demised premises reasonably and bona fide for his use and occupation. That amendment application was dismissed by the trial Court on 1/06/1989. Against that, the petitioner filed a revision petition bearing No. 569/1989, which was decided by this Court on 1/08/1989. This Court while dismissing the revision petition against the order dismissing the application of the defendant under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC about rejection of the amendment application, observed that it was undisputed that subsequent events arising after the institution of the suit can be considered by the Court. For that purpose, it was not necessary to disturb the Order of rejection of the amendment application. It was pointed out that the plaintiff-non-petitioner could, if he so liked, file a reply along with a counter-affidavit to the application filed by the petitioner and, it was also stated that the trial Court will consider the subsequent events.

(3.) Accordingly, the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a reply to the application of the defendant for taking into consideration the subsequent events and, he also filed a counter-affidavit in support of the reply. In his reply, the plaintiff-non-petitioner in paras 1, 2 and 3 of the additional pleas mentioned that similar application dated 14/09/1987 filed by the petitioner had been decided and dismissed by the trial Court on 15/09/1987 and, therefore, the subsequent application on the same matter was barred by the principle of res judicata. The plaintiff-non-petitioner further stated in his reply that the petitioner in his application and also in his statement recorded on 15/12/1987 had denied the title of the non-petitioner as his landlord and, on the ground of this disclaimer of title, the non-petitioner had also acquired a right to get a decree for ejectment against the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner had admitted the title of the non-petitioner as his landlord in a previous suit. Lastly, it was said in para 3 of additional plea that the non-petitioner will need the premises.