R.S.KEJRIWAL,J. - (1.) THE Additional Civil Judge (Junior Zone) First Class No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 11.7.95, rejected the application for amendment of plaint. This order has been challenged in this revision.
(2.) I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order. This fact is not disputed that the amendments sought by the plaintiff non -petitioner are based on subsequent events. It is also not in dispute that evidence of the plaintiff is not over. On account of amendments, the nature of the suit is not going to be changed. By way of amendment the plaintiff wants to add one more ground of eviction that the disputed property is required for the personal use of the plaintiff. In Shikarchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. : [1974]3SCR101 , approving the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Rai Charan v. Biswanath AIR 1915 Calcutta 103, the Apex Court held as below: But it is Open to a Court of appeal to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become in appropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties. In the present case as noted above the amendments sought by the plaintiff non -petitioner are necessary to shorten the litigation between the parties.
(3.) IN Arma Sunni v. U.I.T. and Ors. RLR 1988 (1) 852, this Court held that where subsequent to institution of suit, events happen which afford plaintiff a new cause of action for relief claimed, plaintiff should be allowed to amend plaint in appropriate manner.;