- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioners' amendment application observing that the facts petitioner-tenants wanted to add in the written statement can always be supported by evidence and does not require any amendment. It appears that two applications were filed by landlord i.e., husband and wife separately in respect to shop in question which is owned by both, for release of shop, for the benefit of their son who intend to commence business therein. It is contended by petitioner that during pendency of these matters, the landlady's another application already pending, was allowed and another shop was released in her favour. In that case the shop released can be used for the benefit of son and it is this fact the petitioner wanted to add in written statement. If a subsequent event is covered by judgment of the Court which is said to have been passed in another matter but relates to one of the party in the case and is relevant, it is always permissible to tenant to place that judgment before the Trial Court in evidence to show that genuine need of landlady do not survive any more i.e., in view of the fact that one shop has already been released by the Court in favour of landlady for the same purpose for which two applications for release are pending consideration. The Court can take judicial notice of a judgment passed by Court and it is always open to parties to place the judgment as evidence passed between the parties in another matter which has some effect on the matter under consideration. I do not find any error in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference.
(2.) Petitioner has placed reliance on this Court decision in Smt. Sumita Samanta and others v. Nand Kishore Jaiswal, 2011 88 AllLR 818, wherein this Court held that an amendment which is not treated to be a dilatory tactic and does not change nature of suit ought be allowed. In my view the said decision has no application to the facts of this case wherein the judgment passed by a Court releasing one shop for the benefit of landlady satisfying her genuine need for which it is alleged that two applications are pending, can always be filed before the Court below in the pending proceedings as an evidence and judicial notice can be taken of such judgment.
(3.) No interference in view of above is called for. However, since the P.A. Case No. 44 of 2009 is pending in this matter for the last three years, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Court below to decide it expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.;