Decided on May 25,1982

Piray Lal Dhar Appellant
S Jasbir Singh Respondents


- (1.) IN a suit for ejectment, pending between the parties, in the court of the Second Addl. Munsiff Srinagar, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint on two grounds, firstly, that the tenancy had been validly terminated, and secondly, that the suit property was needed by the plaintiff for reconstruction. The trial court disallowed the amendment. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff come up in revision to this court.
(2.) BEFORE me the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the trial court was not justified in refusing the amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the plaintiffs need for reconstruction as a ground for ejectment. The trial court, it may be noted, has rejected on the ground that the application was belated. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that assuming that it was belated; the other side could be compensated by way of costs. The counsel for the respondent tried to resist the argument on the ground that the plaintiff could have made it a ground for ejectment when he originally filed the plaint and that the amendment now sought by him was not bona -fide. There is nothing in law to prevent the plaintiff from seeking the amendment of the plaint in order to seek the ejectment on additional ground, provided, of course, the ground alleged is bona -fide. The authorities have gone to the extent of allowing the amendment even after the period prescribed for filing the suit has expired, the condition, being that the facts have already been pleaded in the plaint. That consideration does not arise in the present case, Here the question is whether the amendment sought is bona -fide. That is a question of fact. For aught we know that the condition of the house has deteriorated during the pendency of the suit making it necessary for the plaintiff to seek ejectment on the ground of reconstruction. In the circumstances, merely because the plaint did not include this as a ground for ejectment when it was originally filed, it cannot be said that the amendment is mala -fide. It is true that amendment has been claimed at a late stage. For that the defendant can be adequately compensated by way of costs. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court ought to have appropriately allowed the amendment enabling the plaintiff to include the need for reconstruction as an additional ground for ejectment in the plaint. The view to the contrary expressed by the trial court vitiates its order. The order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) ALLOWING this revision, I set aside the order to the extent the trial court has declined the plaintiff to make the second amendment mentioned above. It is directed that the trial court shall allow the plaintiff to make such amendment in the plaint. The order shall, however, be subject to the condition that the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 100/ - (rupees one hundred) as costs and also files the amended plaint within a period of two weeks from to -day. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 5th of June, 1982.;

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