N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) - By this revision the petitioner has sought co assail the order of the learned Appellate Court dated 6.1.2000 whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the plaintiff non-petitioner's duplication for amendment of the plaint in a suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of Vinod Kumar which suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.
(2.) The suit was originally filed way back in the year 1979 by one Ratanlal, the father of Vinod Kumar and the ancestor of the present plaintiffs who are the widow, daughters and sons of the deceased Ratanlal. Ratanlal had expired on 4.12.85 when the suit was pending before the learned trial Court as it had been dismissed on 19.10.89. The necessity disclosed in the plaint was that Vinod Kumar after passing M.Com. Final Examination has stopped pursuing further education and the plaintiffs want his son to start the oil mill shop in the shop in question. By the way it may be mentioned here that as the facts have come on record both the parties had extensive business establishment and business enterprises may be in different names and doing different business.
(3.) The amendment sought to be made was to the effect that the deceased had made a will on 18.8.84 which was for the first time disclosed by the present non-petitioner No. 1 the widow on 20.1.98 only and on that basis the plaintiff wanted to add paras 7A to 7H as detailed in para 9 of the application, inter alia seeking to contend that Vinod Kumar has married having one daughter and one son also and thus having family liabilities while his burden is being borne by his brother non-petitioner Pushkarlal. The will was alleged to have not been disclosed as by will different properties were willed away in favour of different persons and disclosure would have disrupted the family and it is for this reason that the will was not disclosed even in the suit filed against the tenant Sirumal Virumal. It was also sought to be pleaded that time and again the petitioners are insisting on the fact that Vinod Kumar is carrying on the business while according to the plaintiff the Agarwal Oil Mill is the branch of firm Kanniram Ramjeevan but whose sole proprietor is Pushkarlal wherein Vinod Kumar has no interference and that since Vinod Kumar has no independent source of income and is living under very odd economic conditions and therefore till the premises are vacated the plaintiff Prem Bai has put the burden of Vinod Kumar on Pushkarlal. Similarly the other facts regarding comparative hardship, partial eviction, defendants having acquired other premises and certain other pleadings calculated to explain previous statement of Vinod Kumar and assail the findings of the learned trial Court were also sought to be taken. This application was filed on 18.8.99 supported by the affidavit of Pushkarlal only.;