CHHOTEY KHAN Vs. VIMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 4. 1. 1991, passed by learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1 (North) Kota, by which he allowed the amendment application submitted by the plaintiff non- petitioner in Civil Suit No. 101/82.

(2.) THE brief relevant facts of the case are that one Madan Lal predecessor of the non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of his personal necessrity for starting clothe-business in the disputed shop. Said Shri Madan Lal died during the pendency of the suit. After his death the non-petitioners submitted an application for amendment of plaint seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity of non-petitioners Vimal Kumar and Rakesh Kumar for running an electric shop and also on the ground of nuisance. This application for amendment was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 4. 1. 1991, which has been challenged by the defendant petitioner in this revision.

(3.) IN the present case, the plaintiff Madanlal died during the pendency of the suit and as such it was obligatory to the trial court to take note of the subsequent event and to allow the amendment with a view to do complete justice between the parties in this very suit. IN Pasupuleti's case (supra) the Apex Court was of the view that It was undesirable to drive the parties to a new litigation of unknown duration. The Apex Court, under these circumstances, allowed the landlord to amend the petition. Under these circumstances, in my view to say that the non-petitioners be asked to file a fresh suit on the ground of their personal necessity would mean to drive them to a new litigation of unknown duration. The necessity of the legal heirs of the plaintiff can be decided in the present suit after giving an opportunity to the defendant to file amended written statement.