RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. TARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Sec. 115, Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 23-7-97 passed by the learned Addl Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 54/92 thereby rejecting the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for allowing amendment in his written statement.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner, inter alia, pleading his reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises which is a shop, sought decree for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises which is being seriously contested by the latter. The trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues arising there from and, consequently, recorded evidence of both the parties and, at the fag end of the trial, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 R. 17 Code of Civil Procedure requesting for permission to allow amendment in his written statement by way of addition of Para 7(a) pleading that the plaintiff-non-petitioner has constructed a new shop over the ground-floor in the first storey and another in the second storey during the pendency of the suit which are still lying vacant and in case Nand Lal, who is son of the plaintiff, is intending and desirous to start any business for which, allegedly, the suit premises is required, he has already constructed and acquired accommodation by way of acquisition and availability of two shops, as above and, as a result, the alleged need and necessity of a shop stands wiped off. Since both these shops, newly constructed and presently lying vacant, came into being raised during the pendency of the suit and were not in existence at the time of the institution of the suit and, therefore, it was requested that since this incident happened subsequent to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff and so also after the written statement of the defendant-petitioner was filed and, resultantly, consequential amendment has been sought for.

(3.) This application of the defendant-petitioner has been hotly contested pleading there against that there did not arise any question of new construction of any shop either in the first or in the second storey of the building in the ground-floor on which the suit premises is situated and that the same are existing in the same condition in which they did at the time of institution of the suit itself and the defendant has wrongly described these rooms as shops. Therefore, it was clearly denied that there did exist any alternative accommodation for running business either in the first or in the second storey of the premises. It was also pleaded that since the trial of the suit was on the verge of completion and, accordingly, this prayer for amendment in the written statement was made solely with an ulterior motive of unduly protracting and delaying the disposal of the suit.