ASOPA, J. - (1.) THAT by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15. 4. 2005 passed by District Judge, Tonk, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. dated 19. 10. 01 for amendment of written statement and another under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. dated 17. 1. 2002, for taking subsequent events on record were dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that a decree of eviction was passed on 16. 9. 1994 against the petitioner-appellant in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tonk. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed one application on 19. 10. 01 under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in the written statement on the ground that in the civil suit decree of the disputed shop dated 16. 9. 94 was passed on the ground of necessity of Gauri Shanker, who has opened a Shop No. F-4 in New Mandi Yard, Newai on 24. 11. 1994. Therefore, the necessity of the plaintiffs stand satisfied and amendment in the written statement is necessary. Alongwith the said application the petitioner filed a photocopy of the Inauguration Card of the said shop on 24. 11. 1994. The another application was filed on 17. 1. 2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. for taking documents/subsequent events on record on the ground that during the pendency of the suit Gauri Shankar already had a Shop No. D-17 at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Newai but the said fact could not come in the notice of the defendant during the pendency of the suit. It has been further stated that the said fact came to the notice during the pendency of the appeal when Gauri Shanker applied for renewal of the license on 17. 1. 2002. The Renewal Application was annexed with the aforesaid application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed reply to both the aforesaid applications and prayed for rejection of the same. The learned District Judge considered the fact that reasonable and bonafide necessity is to be seen on the date of institution of the suit and further gave a finding that from the documents it does not reveal that Gauri Shanker has been allotted a separate shop or has started his business separately. He has further given a finding that prima facie it does not reveal whether in Mandi Yard Newai, Shop No. F-4 or any other shop is allotted to Shri Gauri Shanker. The learned Judge relying on a judgment of Supreme Court dismissed both the applications with costs of Rs. 1,000/ -.
(3.) THE submission of counsel for the petitioner is that since the decree has been passed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of Gauri Shanker and both the documents are related to starting of business by Gauri Shanker, although one during the pendency of the suit and another during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the same have material bearing on the issue and relief granted by the Trial Court becomes inappropriate in the changed circumstances. Further it is necessary to take the subsequent event in order to shorten the litigation and further the same will do complete justice between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment in Wadi vs. Amilal and Ors. reported in 2002 Western Law Cases (SC) Civil, 726. The submission of the counsel for the respondents is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents do not disclose the start of the independent business by Gauri Shanker. Otherwise also as per the Supreme Court judgment reported in Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 803, the crucial date for deciding bona fides of the need is date of application. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Smt. Kamla Dhawla vs. Krishna Katta, 2001 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 229. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. ;