The court held that a trial court should not reject an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, unless it is satisfied that the application is mala fide or calculated to delay the proceedings.

1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the revision petitions are against the orders passed by the learned trial Judge in the same civil suit. It is therefore, proper to dispose of both the petitions together.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner Smt. Surdashna Kumari filed a suit against the non-petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and by amendment, it was pleaded that the petitioner wanted the suit premises for her son Rakesh, who wanted to set up a shop. After the framing of the issues, the petitioner-plaintiff was permitted to lead her evidence. Before the petitioner's evidence was closed, she moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code praying that she should be permitted to further amend her plaint Section as to be able to plead therein that she require the suit premises for the purpose of setting up a chemists shop by her second son Sunil. On 5th July, 97, the learned trial Judge heard the counsels for both the parties regarding the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and rejected the same. Revision Petition No. 743/97 is directed against the order dated 5th July, 97.

4. While rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code by order dated 5th July, 97, the learned trial Judge directed that the case be listed on 17th July, 97 for the plaintiff's-petitioner's evidence. It was observed that last chance was being given to the petitioner-plaintiff for her evidence. On 17-7-97, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the case should be adjourned as the plaintiff wanted to file a revision petition against the order dated 5th July, 97 and on account of the death of a distinct relative, the evidence could not be produced. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner's application dated 17-7-97 for adjournment of hearing was rejected by the learned trial Judge on the ground that no revision petition had been filed against the order dated 5-7-97 and that the case was an old one pending for the last 11 years and no order for stay of the proceedings had been passed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17-7-97, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the revision petition No. 742/97.

5. I will first of all take up the revision petition No. 743/97 challenging the order dated 5th July, 97 passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the suit, Sunil, second son of the petitioner left the job as Medical Representative and he wanted to set up a chemical shop and the necessity of a shop for establishing Sunil Kumar occurred after the filing of the plaint. This necessity was in the nature of an event which occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint and the petitioner had no alternative but to apply under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring on record this subsequent event. It is also submitted by him that in view of the fact that the necessity of a shop for Sunil Kumar occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint, it was necessary for the learned trial Judge to have taken into consideration this necessity and allow the amendment sought by the petitioner, irrespective of the amendment sought earlier on account of the necessity of the shop for the other son Rakesh Kumar. It is also submitted by the learned (sic) amendments, which can be allowed by the Court under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is not limited and as and when an application is moved under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, it has to be disposed of on merits and such an application could not have been rejected on the ground that the amendment of a plaint had been allowed on an earlier occasion. Regarding the necessity of filing an affidavit along with the application under Order 6