The court's decision emphasized the limitations on allowing amendments to the plaint, particularly when it would require fresh evidence and did not meet the established conditions for such amendments.

JAGAT NARAYAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS a revision application by the defendants against an order of the additional munsif No. 1. Jaipur City, allowing an amendment of the plaint.

( 2 ) THE defendants are the tenants of a shop which was owned by Smt. Pana Devi respondent No. 1. She filed the present suit for eviction on 6-9-1969 on two grounds. The first, around was that the tenants had committed default in paving rent for six months. The second ground was that they had sub-let e part of the shop without the permission of the landlord. On the first data of hearing the tenants deposited the arrears of rent as required under Section 13 (4) of the rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950, and they have been depositing rent month by month since then. Issues were framed on 6-8-1970 and the statement of Smt. Pana Devi was recorded on 1-8-1971. She sold the shop in dispute on 31-8-1971 to Padam Prakash respondent No. 2, who filed an application on 4-10-1971 under Order 22. Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, for leave to prosecute the suit as a plaintiff. This leave was granted. In the same application he made a prayer for the amendment of the plaint by adding e ground that the shop was bona fide and reasonably required by him for his own use. This amendment was allowed on 22-10-1971. This order allowing the amendment has been challenged before me in this revision application.

( 3 ) THE revision application was opposed on behalf of Padam Prakash.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1970) 20 Raj 88 (FB ). It was observed as follows :--

"the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are based on principles of natural justice or are designed to grant effectual hearing to the parties while deciding controversies raised in the proceedings before the Court. Some of those provisions are mandatory and some of the provisions are discretionary. Obviously, if the court exercised its jurisdiction one way or the other while administering discretionary provisions there will be seldom any ground for revision unless the irregularity is of such material nature that the High Court considers that a fit case is made out for interference in revision. "

( 5 ) IN Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari, 1969 Raj LW 516 = (AIR 1970 Raj 77) it was held that only in exceptional circumstances the courts may allow an amendment of the plaint in exercise of their inherent power so as to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the institution of the suit provided the following conditions are satisfied :-

" (1) There is no change of jurisdiction, (2) the application is not greatly belated. (3) no fresh enquiry on facts is necessary, and (4) the opposite party is not deprived of any defence which would be open to it if a fresh suit on the new cause of action "were to be brought. "

( 6 ) IN the present case, condition No. 3 is not satisfied inasmuch as evidence will have to be led by Padam Prakash to prove that he bona fide and reasonably requires the suit shop for his own use. The Court thus acted with material irregularity in allowing the amendment within the meaning of the passage quoted above from the judgment of the Full Bench in ILR (1970) 20 Raj 88. A fit case is thus made out for interference in revision.

( 7 ) I, accordingly, allow the revision application and set aside the order of the trial court allowing the amendment make no order as to costs.

.