Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

1. This is a revisional application against judgment and order dated July 21, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 186 of 2003.

2. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge rejected an application for amendment of the plaint.

3. The suit was instituted, inter alia, on the grounds of default and for unauthorised additions and alterations.

4. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to state certain subsequent events, that is, the defendant had substantially damaged the suit premises by demolishing the existing latrine and the kitchen during the pendency of the suit.

5. Such allegations are, however, not admitted by the defendant.

6. The application for amendment was rejected by the learned trial judge failed to appreciate as to how such innocuous prayer was rejected. The learned judge opined that the aforesaid subsequent events were not required to be incorporated in the plaint by amendment, but such statement could brought in as evidence.

7. If essential fact is lacking in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot adduce evidence of such facts.

8. Supreme Co