Decided on November 17,2005

Satish George Respondents


DHIRENDRA MISHRA,J. - (1.) THE appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-7-1994 passed by Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 111 -A/1993 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8-1-1990 passed by Civil Judge class II Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 270- A/1982 decreeing the suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff.
(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the original plaintiff Satish George who died during the pendency of this second appeal was the owner of the suit house and he had filed a suit for eviction on the ground that appellant/defendant was his tenant and he required the suit accommodation for the purpose of her grown up sons and daughters as there was no collegiate education facility at his place of posting at Chachai District Shahdol and that he did not have any alternative suitable accommodation in the city of Bilaspur. During the pendency of the civil suit the plaintiff/respondent retired from service, he thereafter amended the suit incorporating the ground of his personal bona fide requirement. The appellant/ defendant disputed the contention of the respondent /plaintiff and denied his plea of bona fide requirement submitting that the suit was filed with an ulterior motive of enhancing the rent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appellant/ defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and during the pendency of the appeal three applications for amendment in the written statement were filed by him on 11-1-1993,10-7-1993 and 25-3-1994 respectively. Application filed on 25-3-1994 was partly allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 31-3-1994. However, the other two applications for amendment in the written statement were rejected while passing the final judgment in the appeal on the ground that the same had been preferred belatedly and there was no explanation for the same. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (7) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in rejecting the applications dated 11-1-1993 and 10-7-1994 by which subsequent events were sought to be brought on record on the ground that the applicants were unnecessarily delayed, when the Court below has allowed the application dated 25-3-1994 ? (2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the first appellate Court justified in holding that on face of the evidence on record, the respondent - plaintiff's bona fide need is proved ?
(3.) DURING the pendency of this appeal the original plaintiff died and the names of the legal heirs have been substituted by order dated 30-7-2004. The appellant filed an application for amendment in the written statement i.e. I A No. 7500/2002 which is supported by an affidavit. He has also filed the documents as per list. The above application is also being disposed of along with this appeal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.