J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated March 2, 1989, whereby the application for the amendment of the ejectment application, in appeal, was declined.
(2.) THE landlord Surinder Kumar filed the ejectment application against Kishore Singh tenant, deceased. In the ejectment application, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, i.e., his widow and his two sons were impleaded as tenants. It was specifically pleaded in the ejectment application that those were the only legal representatives of the deceased which fact was admitted in the reply filed on their behalf. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed on September 17, 1987. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties filed separate appeals. In the appeal filed by the landlord, he moved an application for amendment of the ejectment application as to implead certain other legal representatives of the deceased tenant as well in order to avoid any technical objection later on. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ejectment is being sought inter alia on the ground of bonafide personal necessity. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1983 and thus, a period of six years has elapsed. Since the landlord did not know earlier that certain other persons are also there as the legal representatives of the deceased, they were not impleaded as such and now in order to avoid any further complication at any later state, the application for amendment was made which should have been allowed. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong and illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that to allow amendment of the pleadings in appeal, a very strong case is required to be made. Such an amendment should not be allowed as a matter of course at the appellate stage. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Zile Singh v. Smt. Darkan, 1984 Punjab Law Journal 346 and Ramesh Naru v. Gulshan Rai Malik, 1987 Punjab Law Journal 472.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel forthe parties, I am of the considered opinion that the approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. The amendment is being sought on the ground that later on any technical objection may not be taken by those persons who were not impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Under the circumstances, it is just and proper that those persons who were left out earlier and could not be impleaded because of ignorance should not be impleaded at the appellate stage. It is also necessary to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, if any. Moreover, the ejectment is being sought on the ground of personal necessity. A period of about six years has passed since the filing of the ejectment application. If this amendment at this stage is not allowed, the litigation will be unnecessarily prolonged further on technical objections.;