SATYA BRATA SINHA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 31.1.1979 passed by Sri S. Roy, learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 889 of 1972, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for eviction. The original plaintiff, at the time of institution of the suit, was a student. He filed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement stating : "The plaintiff's family consists of himself and his two brothers, his parents and four unmarried sisters who all live together and he has also got three married sisters who come to their parents' place at times and a daughter of one of his sisters lives in the plaintiff's family. The accommodation in the premises where the plaintiff is at present living with his family is quite inadequate for the residence of his family and their residence there is precarious and the plaintiff has got no other suitable accommodation to live in the city. The plaintiff and his family members require the premises in suit as well as other portions of the premises No. 15, Scott Lane, Calcutta which have been purchased by his brothers for their own use and occupation".
(2.) THE learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's father who was stated to be the real owner in respect of the property in question has since died. The plaintiff has also died in the year 1994. In his place and stead, his other brothers and sisters have been substituted. It appears that the plaintiff had earlier, keeping in view the subsequent events, filed an application for adduction of additional evidence in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such subsequent events were also brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit. However, now an application for amendment of the plaint has been filed. Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants submits that keeping in view the fact that a large number of persons figure as plaintiffs in place and stead of the sole plaintiff, and further keeping in view the fact that the question of benami no longer subsists and bona fide requirement of the substituted plaintiffs have to be considered. Mr. Dasgupta has also submitted that a Will had been executed, beneficiaries whereof are only 2 ladies. The said Will has been probated. By reason of terms of the said Will, the position of the plaintiffs has become precarious, inasmuch as, in the event of death of the surviving lady, who has life interest in the property, the other heirs will have a right of purchasing the property as in the event any dispute arises by and between the plaintiffs and their uncles the latter would have a right of pre-emption and they can purchase the property only by paying a paltry sum of Rs. 4,000/-.
(3.) MR . Roychowdhury, appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that in view of the statements made in paragraph 5 of the plaint, as noticed hereinabove, it would appear that the original plaintiff had already pleaded requirement of his brothers and sisters, and thus, no reason exists for allowing the amendment of the plaint. Learned Counsel further submits that an application for amendment of plaint should not be allowed after a lapse of 25 years, more so, when the same is sought to be done for the purpose of getting rid of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It has been pointed out that the original plaintiff did not plead about the effect of the Will, although the same was in existence when the suit was filed and the said Will has been probated. According to the learned counsel, in this view of the matter, even no additional evidence is required to be adduced.;