Babu Lal vs Chandi Ram

R.S. Kejriwal, J.—The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Zone) First Class No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 11.7.95, rejected the application for amendment of plaint. This order has been challenged in this revision.

I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order. This fact is not disputed that the amendments sought by the plaintiff non-petitioner are based on subsequent events. It is also not in dispute that evidence of the plaintiff is not over. On account of amendments, the nature of the suit is not going to be changed. By way of amendment the plaintiff wants to add one more ground of eviction that the disputed property is required for the personal use of the plaintiff. In Shikharchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Others, , approving the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Rai Charan v. Biswanath AIR 1915 Calcutta 103, the Apex Court held as below:

But it is Open to a Court of appeal to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has

(1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become in appropriate; or

(2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or

(3) to do complete justice between the parties.

In the present case as noted above the amendments sought by the plaintiff non-petitioner are necessary to shorten the litigation between the parties.

In Arma Sunni v. U.I.T. and Ors. RLR 1988 (1) 852, this Court held that where subsequent to institution of suit, events happen which afford plaintiff a new cause of action for relief claimed, plaintiff should be allowed to amend plaint in appropriate manner.

In such circumstances, in my opinion, it can not be said that the order passed by the trial court suffers from any jurisdictional error. Consequently the revision is dismissed.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 1.3.1996. The plaintiff-non-petitioner is directed to file amended plaint on or before the said date. Thereafter the defendant will file amended written statement within two weeks. The amended written staement be limited only to para Nos. 6 Ka and 6 Kh, which are added by amendment, thereafter the trial court will frame necessary issues relating to Para No. 6Ka and 6 Kh of amended plaint. The plaintiff will close his evidence within six months from the date of framing of the issues. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant will close his evidence within six months. The trial court is directed not to grant long and unnecessary adjournments to the parties and should decide the suit expeditiously as far as possible by the end of May, 1997. Record be sent back immediately.