I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision petition under Sec. 115 C. P. C. against the order dated 1. 6. 82 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 154/78. By this, the learned lower court allowed the amendment of the plaint.
(2.) A suit was filed by the petitioner for ejectment against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub letting alleging therein that a Chabutara measuring 12' X 16' was given on monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the non petitioners. The amendment application was allowed on 20. 7. 81 notice dated 16. 11. 1976 and personal necessity of Chabutara and comparative hardship. The main contention of learned counsel Shri K. N. Tikku appearing for the defendant petitioner is that the plaintiff/non petitioner was aware of all these amendments even at the time of filing of the suit, there fore, such amendments should not have been allowed by the trial court. Reliance has been allowed by the trial court. Reliance has been placed on Laduram Vs. Sheodev (1), in which it was held by Shri Jagat Narain J. as he then was, that when the plaintiff wanted to add certain facts, which he had not choosen to mention in the original plaint, he cannot be allowed to make fresh allegations of these facts by way of amendment. It is, therefore, submitted that the amendment should have been disallowed. Mr. P. C. Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff/non petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in Premlal Vs. Jadav Chand (2), in which the law on amendment was thoroughly discussed. The ratio of this decision that such amendment should be allowed, which will not alter the nature and character of the suit nor will it cause any prejudice to the defendant. The suit still remains a suit based on the original cause of action i. e. on determination of the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant. There is no question of taking away from the defendant any legal right, which had accused to him by lapse of time nor does the amendment introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent cause". In the case of Oudeet Ullah Vs. Municipal Board, Bareli (3), while considering this aspect of the matter it was held by the Apex Court that the grounds in Sec. 3 of the Utter Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 should not be necessarily transmuted into a substantive right in the defendant. It was further observed that it was appropriate for the court to do justice between the parties to the litigation and in moulding the relief in the light of legislative changes. A court of justice should if it could, adjudicate finally and not leave the door hjar to litigate again". It is, therefore, contended that the introduction desired amendment does not change the character of the suit, which will remain same and no prejudice is caused to the defendant. It was further pointed out that the courts are extremely liberal in granting prayers of amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In Haridas Aildas vs. Godrej Bustom (4) it was held by the Apex Court that the re-visional court ought not to lightly interfere with the discretion in allowing amendments in the absence of cogent or compelling circumstance unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side. In the case of Maitreyee Banerjee vs. Praveer Kumar Mukharjee (5) it was held by their Lordships that when no irreparable injury or injustice is caused to the opposite side and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the lower court, the High Court in exercise of its power of revision should not have interfered with the order allowing amendment, In the present case the amendment sought does not change the character of the suit nor it causes any injustice or prejudice to the defendant. I am therefore, of the opinion that there is no force in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. .;