- (1.) THE instant revision is filed by the revisionists challenging the order dated 20. 2. 95 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 3, Bhilwara in Original Civil Case No. 1/91.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for eviction against the defendant-tenant on the ground of default as well as on the ground that the tenant has built his own house and he is not living in the premises for last six months. While describing the suit-property in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, it was by bonafide mistake in place of first floor, second floor was typed. When the mistake become known to the plaintiffs, an application under 0. 6 r. 17 read with Sec. 151, CPC was moved to amend the said typographical mistake and it was prayed that in place of second floor, first floor may be amended. The aforesaid application opposed by the defendant-tenant on the ground, inter alia, that if this amendment is allowed by amending first floor in place of second floor, the nature of suit will be changed. According to the defendant-tenant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the mistake cannot be said to be bonafide typographical mistake. The instant revision was presented before this court against the aforesaid order and this Court on 7 4. 95 issued notice to the defendant-tenant to show cause as to why this revision be not admitted and allowed. After service of notice, the defendant-tenant is represented by learned counsel Shri Sanjeev Johri. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and critically gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the aforesaid amendment application.
(3.) IT is apparent from perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial court has placed reliance on several decision of this Court in rejecting the amendment application but it escaped its notice the judgments reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 (1) and AIR 1969 SC 1967 According to the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant if the proposed amendment is allowed by amending first floor in place of second floor in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, the nature of the suit could change. The basic question before this Court is whether the amendment introduced a new cause of action or a new case? I do not think it does so. In my humble opinion, the suit is filed on the basis of contract of tenancy between the plaintiffs as well as tenant on the ground of default and also on the ground that the tenant has built his own house and he is not living in the premises for last six months. ;