MURLIDHAR Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15. 4. 2005 passed by District Judge, Tonk, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. dated 19. 10. 01 for amendment of written statement and another under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. dated 17. 1. 2002, for taking subsequent events on record were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that a decree of eviction was passed on 16. 9. 1994 against the petitioner-appellant in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tonk.

(3.) THE submission of counsel for the petitioner is that since the decree has been passed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of Gauri Shanker and both the documents are related to starting of business by Gauri Shanker, although one during the pendency of the suit and another during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the same have material bearing on the issue and relief granted by the Trial Court becomes inappropriate in the changed circumstances. Further it is necessary to take the subsequent event in order to shorten the litigation and further the same will do complete justice between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment in Wadi vs. Amilal and Ors. reported in 2002 Western Law Cases (SC) Civil, 726.