Smt. Ratani Devi vs Mahendra Kumar Jha and Others

G.C. Mital, C.J.—The Petitioner succeeded in a suit for ejectment before the first court on the ground of personal necessity. The tenant filed appeal. During the pendency of appeal before the Additional District Judge, the tenant filed an application for amendment of the written statement to plead that the personal necessity of the landlord has ceased. The detailed facts how the personal necessity is ceased, is not relevant for consideration because that application was allowed and the tenant was allowed to file amendment of written statement. After the amended written statement was filed, the landlord sought an opportunity to file replication/rejoinder to controvert the allegations raised in the amended written statement. That opportunity has been declined by the Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 16.10.1992. This is landlord''s Revision against that order.

On a consideration of the matter I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge erred in law and failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not allowing the opportunity to the landlord to file rejoinder/replication to the amended written statement. This was the bare minimum which the appellate Court should have done.

If a plaint is allowed to be amended it becomes the duty of the Court to

give opportunity to the Defendant to file written statement to the amended plaint. he same would be the position if amendment to the written statement is allowed.

For the reasons recorded above, the Revision is allowed, the order of appellate Court is set aside and the landlord is allowed to file rejoinder/replication to the amended written statement. After rejoinder/replication is filed, the Court will proceed in accordance with law.