SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners who are landlords of suit premises, seek to quash the order dated August 22, 1998 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City whereby application seeking amendment of plaint was dismissed.
(2.) WHEN the suit was posted for final arguments, the petitioners moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the averments that originally the suit property was jointly owned by them as co-owners but on April 2, 1998 oral partition took place whereunder the petitioners Jai Kumar Bhandia, Nirmal Kumar Bhandia, and Navin Kumar Bhandia respectively got second floor, first floor and ground floor and they agreed to use the said shares to the entire exclusion of one another. Petitioner Navin Kumar Bhandia was in immediate need of the ground floor for the reason that he apprehended dispossession from the premises where he presently resided as tenant as his landlord instituted suit for eviction against him. The tenant respondents submitted reply to the application denying the oral partition. Learned trial court dismissed the application of the land lords as indicated hereinabove. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. The landlord petitioners admittedly instituted suit for eviction in 1980 stating therein that they are brothers and residing in rented premises therefore they reasonably and bonafide needed the suit property for their residential purposes so that each of them could have their independent residence. It was also pleaded that the suit property was also required by them for running their business of printing press etc. Now after about 18 years alleged oral partition had taken place between the landlords and they sought amendment of plaint treating the said partition as subsequent event. Whenever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, this court is not precluded from taking a `cautious cognizance' of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. (Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram (AIR 1992 SC 700), but I do not consider oral partition to have a material bearing on the entitlement of the land lord petitioners to relief sought in the suit. The pleadings of reasonable and bonafide necessity have already been incorporated in the plaint and if any arrangement is made by the landlords in respect of suit property during the pendency of the suit, such arrangement can not be termed as subsequent event which has a material bearing on the entitlement of the landlords to relief. It is well settled that where subsequent to the institution of the suit events happen which give the plaintiff a new cause of action for the relief claimed or the right to a new or additional relief he will, as a general rule, be allowed to amend the plaint by moulding it in an appropriate manner. But in the instant case the alleged oral partition does not give the landlord petitioners a new cause of action for the relief claimed, it also does not given them the right to a new or additional relief. The right to amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC depends upon `the real controversy test' being satisfied. No amendment can be allowed if it does not satisfy this test. Alleged oral partition also does not satisfy `the real controversy test. ' The age of litigation is undeniably 19 years and landlords petitioners cannot be permitted to continue the suit again from `a to Z'. I do not see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and if it is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice.
(3.) THE revision petition being devoid of mer it, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Interim order passed during the pendency of revision stands vacated. .;