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

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2001. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of his original application for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. The dismissal has been on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is trying to produce further evidence which was not brought on record by the petitioner when he had opportunity to produce the same.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that the petitioner by an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has proposed to amend the original application for eviction by bringing on record certain events which had occurred subsequent to the filing of the proceedings as they are material for the just decision in the matter in relation to the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings and inspite of the fact that at the time of examination of his son before the trial Court, the petitioner had ample opportunity to bring the said facts on record, yet the same are sought to be brought on record only after disposal of the proceedings by the trial Court and when the matter is pending before the lower Appellate Court and being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner.

4. Bare reading of the application for amendment discloses that the petitioner seeks to bring on record certain facts which have occurred subsequent to the filing of the proceedings. It should not be forgotten that when subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing upon the entitlement to the relief to the parties or on the aspect of need for moulding of the relief, the Court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of such subsequent changes of fact and law and to mould relief, as has been ruled by the Apex Court in (Ramesh Kumar v. Keshav Rao)1, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 700.

5. In (Lekhj Raj v. Muni Lal)2, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 996, it was held that in case subsequent event having bearing on the issues or relief to be granted in the suit, and any party seek to bring the same on record, the Court could not shut its door.

6. The facts which are sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are in relation to the claim for the personal occupation of the premises by the petitioner and his family. Certainly, the dispute between the parties relates to claim of the petitioner regarding the necessity of the premises for the personal occupation of the petitioner and his family members. In other words, the proposed amendment is in relation to the subject matter of the litigation between the parties and the facts sought to introduce by way of amendment have occurred subsequent to the institution of the proceedings. It is well settled that a party to the civil proceedings if desirous of taking advantage of the events which have occurred subsequent to the filing of the proceedings, then the party is not forbidden from doing so, provided that the party has to bring on record those facts by way of amendment of the pleadings and thereafter establish the same by leading necessary evidence in support of such pleadings. But, in the absence of such facts being incorporated in the pleadings, the party cannot derive any benefit from such facts nor any evidence in that regard can be produced on record or looked into. This position in law is well settled in view of the decision by the Apex Court in (Om Prakash Gupta v. Rambir B. Goyal)3, reported in A.I.R.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document