RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.5.2001, allowing amendment of the plaint permitting the plaintiff to add additional reasoning in support of his plea for reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his own occupation inter alia on the ground that the suit has been filed on the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord. Necessity pleaded was to carry on the business of textile, finance and supply in the suit premises. The amendment sought is that since filing of the suit, the plaintiff has also acquired the dealership of LML Vespa Scooter and, therefore, he needs shop for the purpose of construction of show room, office and store etc., for the purpose of that business. The trial Court finding that suit is at the initial stage and amendment will not alter the nature of the suit, has allowed the revision under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings of filing, successive suits for eviction of shops let out by the landlord plaintiff on the ground that he has reasonable and bona fide necessity to occupy the suit premises by pleading different necessities which are presently existing particularly when in the present suit evidence is yet to be led by the plaintiff. I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances no interference is called for in this revision petition. As it is neither a case of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court or a case of failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in it nor it is case of any irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the trial Court. Moreover, no substantial failure of justice occasions, if the order is not set aside.
(3.) THE revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.;