The main legal point established is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and the potential prejudice to the other party should be considered. Bonafide, legitimate, and necessary amendments should not be refused solely on the ground of delay.

1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Dwivedi on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The defendant-petitioner have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by Munsif IIIrd Patna in eviction suit No.51 of 2002 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the petition dated 23.05.2011 filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement.

3. The plaintiff’s case in short is that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid eviction suit on the ground of bonafide personal necessity for his son Jitendra Kumar Gupta who is unemployed and the suit premises is suitable for the business purpose. Written statement was filed by the defendant alleging that there is no personal necessity and the plaintiffs filed the suit only to pressurize the defendant to increase rent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.

4. The defendants filed the amendment application alleging that during the pendency of the present suit for eviction, many shops premises of the plaintiff were vacated by other tenants and the plaintiffs let out to other tenant after receiving huge pagri on higher rate of rent. An example was given that Kanhaiya Readymade Garment facing main road was vacated in the year 2004 which was let out to one Ram Babu on the higher rate of rent after taking Rs.2 lakhs as pagri. However, by the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the said application.

5. The learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S. Dwivedi submitted that the statement of fact which was sought to be introduced by amendment is based on subsequent event to the institution of the suit. When the defendant came to know about the induction of other tenant by the plaintiff taking huge pagri the amendment application was filed and in the said amendment application, it has specifically been stated that many other shop premises were vacated giving one instance of Kanhaiya Garment but the learned Court below rejected the application thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.

6. The learned counsel relied upon A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 665 and submitted that the Court is required to take into consideration the subsequent event and permit the parties to amend the pleading as it would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties but the learned Court below illegally rejected the said application.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. J.S. Arora submitted that after introduction of Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., the Court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment in the written statement. In the present case, the evidence of the parties have been closed and the case was posted for argument and at this stage only with a view to delay the disposal of suit, the amendment application has been filed. In the evidence, the defendant clearly stated that one shop, namely, Kanhaiya Readymade Garment was vacated during the pendency of the suit and was let out to Vidya Bhawani Stationary shop of Ram Babu in the year 2005. Therefore, the defendant was knowing the fact from before but no application for amendment was filed earlier. Only during the course of argument, this application for amendment has been filed and, therefore, in view of Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the said prayer for amendment.

8. From perusal of the amendment application and the impugned order, it appears that the defendant alleged that during the pendency of the suit, many shop premises of the plaintiff were vacated and he after taking huge pagri inducted tenants on higher rate of rent. One instance has been given as stated above. Therefore, it appears that the amendment was sought for alleging the fact of subsequent event to the institution of the suit.

9. In A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 665 =2002 (2) Supreme Court cases