JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 16th January, 2002 passed by the Court of Small Causes of Bombay in Appeal No. 248 of 2001 rejecting the application for amendment of the original plaint for eviction filed by the petitioners.

3. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the suit was filed by the husband of the petitioner No. 1 for eviction of the respondents/tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The original plaintiff expired during the proceedings of the suit and the petitioners were brought on record as the legal representatives. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal against the said order. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint thereby adding two more grounds for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises. As regards the proposed amendment, it is the case of the petitioners that the suit premises are being kept closed and locked without being used for the purpose for which it was let out and on account of destruction of residential house of the petitioner consequent to earthquake at Kutch, in the State of Gujrath, the petitioners have lost their entire property and they are in need of the vacant premises for their occupation.

4. The lower Appellate Court has, however, rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner No. 1, if so desires, can argue about the subsequent events at the time of hearing of the appeal and that the same cannot be by way of amendment to the plaint and by allowing the petitioner to examine witnesses. In other words, there is no dispute that the proposed amendment relates to the events which have occurred subsequent to disposal of the proceedings before the trial Court, and the landlord wants to seek relief on the basis of subsequent events by bringing them on record during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the points which arise for consideration, are firstly, whether to bring on record the events which have occurred subsequent to the passing of the decree by the trial Court, the plaint can be allowed to be amended, during the pendency of appeal from decree of trial Court? Secondly, whether such amendment to the plaint at the appellate stage can be rejected on the ground that the parties would to be entitled to lead evidence on such amendment being allowed? And thirdly, whether the eviction of a tenant can be or decreed on the basis of the subsequent events arising during the pendency or after the disposal of the case by the trial Court, in the absence of such events are brought on record by way of amendment and issues arising therefrom are adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of law?

5. In fact, the law as regards the amendment to the pleadings is well settled. The amendment has to be for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties to the proceedings. The power to allow the parties to amend their pleadings is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of the circumstances of each case. The Apex Court in (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgond Shidgonda Patil)1, reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, had approved the ruling of this Court in (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant)2, reported in I.L.R. XXXIII Bom. 644, to the effect that amendment which does not work injustice to the other side and to the extent necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties is to be allowed.

6. Equally it is well established that every suit has to be tried on the original cause of action stated in the plaint and this principle applies to the appeals as well. However, there are few exceptions to the rule. At times, the relief claimed in the plaint becomes inappropriate and insuf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document