U. N. BHACHAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THE present revision has been filed by the plaintiff and has arisen in the following manner.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant-non-applicant herein from the suit shop alleging that he bona fide needs the suit shop for settling his son-in-law who along with his daughter is living with him and is dependent on him for maintenance. The relevant averment in the plaint are as under:

"2. Plaintiff has one issue -- Smt. Asha Bai. She has been married with Shri Deenak Kumar. They live with the plaintiff as members of his family. They depend on him for their maintenance. 3. Plaintiff is old and has now developed cancer. He may close his eves any day. He therefore wants to settle his son-in-law by opening a shop of Jewellery--will make a show room and self Silver wares and silver ornaments etc. Plaintiff will open a shop for him with a capital of Rs. 20,000/- which plaintiff has got. Plaintiff's son-in-law for whom he requires the premises in suit is not in possession of premises of his own in the town of Jabalpur for the purpose aforesaid. "

( 3 ) THE suit has been resisted by the defendant controverting the main plaint allegations. After the arguments were heard and the case was posted for delivery of judgment on 15-2-1980, on this date, the plaintiff made an application to amend his plaint so as to add the following at the end of paragraph 3 of the plaint. "the premises in suit are held for the benefit of Deepak Kumar who is the only male member in plaintiff's family entirely dependent on him. "

( 4 ) THE application was opposed by the defendant.

( 5 ) THE trial Court vide the impugned order dismissed the application only on the ground that no such application is maintainable after the final arguments were heard and the case was reserved for judgment.

( 6 ) THE trial Court came to this conclusion relying on the decision of the supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar AIR 1964 SC 993. The relevant cart of the order roads as under:- -. . (Text in Varnacular not Printed ). . The arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff were that the expression used in Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil P. C. is "at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading" and contended that this expression does not limit the power of the Court to allow the amendment only up to the stage of hearing of the final arguments. The Court is competent to permit the amendment even when after hearing the final arguments, the case is reserved for judgment, as till then the Court has seisin of the matter. He further argued that when the amendment can be allowed even at the stage of the second appeal and even when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court there is no reason to hold that the word "proceedings" does not include the stage when the judgment has to be delivered by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied for support of his averments on a decision in S. Burrayya v. Atchayyamma. AIR 1959 Andh Pra 26. He further argued that the powers of the court for permitting the amendment are very wide: the amendment should be allowed as a rule: refusal is an exception. He further argued that there is already a foundation in the pleading of the plaintiff for the allegations sought to be raised by way of proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is only an elaboration of a plea which is already impliedly covered in plaintiff's pleading and as such the lower Court ought to have allowed the proposed amendment, It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, during the course of his argument that the plaintiff would not lead any evidence in support of the proposed amendment and as such there is no ground for not allowing the proposed amendment particularly when it is not mala fide.

( 7 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the defendant was mainly this that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to set up altogether a new case. Originally

Click Here to Read the rest of this document