The dismissal of an application for amendment does not constitute res judicata, and the court has the power to amend judgments and decrees to dispense substantial justice.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Sarkar and Mr. G. Debbarma, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short'CPC) for amendment of the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1994 and 25-1-1994 respectively passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, presently designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No. 154 of 1986, which were confirmed on appeal by the First Appellate Court in T.A. Nos. 37 of 1994 and T.A. 38 of 1994 vide common judgment dated 8-2-1995 and by this Court in Second Appeal in S.A. Nos. 10 of 1995 and S.A. 11 of 1995 by a common judgment passed on 20-3-2001.

3. In order to consider the prayer as mentioned above, it would be relevant and necessary to outline a sketch of factual background relating to this case.

4. This case portrays a chequered history.

5. The dispute is between the landlord and the tenants and they have been fighting this legal battle for the rented premises in dispute since the year 1977.

6. The instant suit initially being Title Suit No. 12 of 1977 was instituted by the petitioner Shri Dipak Saha, being the landlord, as plaintiff against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents, herein, arraying them as party defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely Mahendra Chandra Saha (since deceased) and Sachindra Chandra Saha (since deceased) respectively who were monthly tenants in the suit premises owned by the petitioner for their eviction from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and also for realization of arrears of rent, damages and compensation. The suit was originally decreed by the learned Munsiff, Sonamura in favour of the plaintiff. However, on appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Sonamura. Against such dismissal, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, mentioned above, preferred a Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala which, in turn, remanded the entire matter for re-trial. On remand, the Title Suit No. 12 of 1977 was renumbered as Title Suit No. 154 of 1986 and the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 1, West Tripura proceeded for adjudication of the Us afresh to arrive at the findings aforenoted, amendment in which has now been sought for.

7. Be it also mentioned that both the above mentioned defendants, predecessors of the present respondents, filed a counter case being Title Suit No. 54 of 1978 in the trial Court for a declaration of specific performance of contract/execution or registration of the sale deed executed by the petitioner, herein, in terms of the contract agreed upon by and between them and the said suit was dismissed.

8. During the pendency of the aforesaid Title Suit i.e. T.S. 154 of 1986, both the defendants died and they were substituted by their respective legal representatives.

9. The present suit i.e. Title Suit No. 154 of 1986 was decreed by the learned trial Court as mentioned above.

10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1994 and 25-1-1994 respectively, the legal representatives i.e. present respondents, of the defendants preferred two separate appeals being Title Appeal No. 37 of 1994 and Title Appeal No. 38 of 1994 as mentioned above and similarly against the dismissal of both the appeals by the appellate Court, they filed two separate second appeals before the Hon'ble High Court as already recorded here-in-above and eventually both the Second Appeals were also dismissed. Decree for eviction and for realization of arrear of rents etc. stood upheld.

11. Insofar as the substitution of legal heirs of the defendant No. 2 Sachindra Ch. Saha is concerned, the petitioner on 30-1-1991 preferred an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC before the then l