ORDER :- This is a revision directed against order dated 4-4-1977 passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment to incorporate subsequent event in the plaint.

2. Facts essential for present purposes are that the plaintiff-applicant filed the present suit against the defendant-non-applicants for ejectment from the suit shop on the grounds (i) under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for default of payment of arrears of rent in spite of service of the notice of demand order; (ii) Section 12(1)(c) of the Act viz., creation of nuisance and (iii) Section 12(1)(h) of the Act viz., requirement for construction.

3. The defendant submitted written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff for ejectment and alleged that none of the grounds are available to the plaintiff.

4. The issues were framed by the trial Court. Thereafter before commencement of the evidence of the parties, the plaintiff submitted an application dated 9-12-1975 for amendment of plaint on the basis of subsequent event viz., that the defendant has during the pendency of the suit, unlawfully inducted in a sub-tenant Jagdish Chandra S/o Ram Dayal in the suit shop. This application was opposed by the defendant-non-applicants and has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

5. Shri K.L. Mangal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant has contended that the impugned order is illegal and the amendment ought to have been allowed in view of the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with O.7 Rule 7 C.P.C. Shri U.K. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant-non-applicants contended that the amendment has been rightly refused.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed.

7. Ordinarily, the decree in suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stand on the date of its institution. This is what has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in a case reported in AIR 1945 PC 62 (Doorga Prasad Chamaria v. Secretary of State) but the framers of the Civil Procedure Code thought it necessary to give powers to courts of law to give effect to subsequent event also. Accordingly, where it is shown that the original relief claimed has by arising of subsequent change of circumstance, became inappropriate, or that it is necessary to have the decision of court on altered circumstance in order to shorten litigation or do complete justice between the parties, it is incumbent upon a court of justice to take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and to mould its decree according to the circumstances as they stand at the time the decree is passed. This is what has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in case reported in AIR

1948 Nag 1 (Mandli Prasad v. Ramcharanlal). Similar is the view of their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court in a case reported in AIR 1963 Raj 198 (Dhan Singh Yadav v. Badri Prasad). In AIR 1948 Nag. 1, it has been held that :-

"A suit must be tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed at the date of its commencement. The court, however, may in suitable cases take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties on the basis of the altered conditions. This doctrine is of an exceptional character and is applied in cases where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate or, that it is necessary to base the decision of the court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. AIR 1915 Cal 103 Rel on.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in case reported in 1961 Jab LJ 780 (Harishchandra Behara v. Garbhoo) has held that :

"Under O.7 R.7 also the subsequent event could be considered to do complete justice between the parti