Skip to content


Lakhmichand Kasliwal Vs. Gopaldas Nikhara - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision No. 727 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978MP171; 1978MPLJ520
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17; Madhya Pradesh Accomodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12
AppellantLakhmichand Kasliwal
RespondentGopaldas Nikhara
Appellant AdvocateJ.K. Jain, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.K. Jain, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases Referred and Dhan Singh v. Badri Prasad
Excerpt:
- .....directed against an order dated 26-7-77 whereby an amendment of the plaintiff's plaint based on subsequent event has been rejected by the trial court.2. the plaintiff-applicant 'herein had filed a suit for ejectment from the suit shop on the grounds under sections12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the m. p. accommodation control act, 1961. it was alleged in the plaint that at the time of the institution of the suit two sub-tenants namely, ashok kumar manibhai patel and rameshwar dayal were occupying the suit premises but later on the said subtenants had vacated and other subtenants, namely, dhan kumar and the bombay textile printers and venus advertisers (a partnership firm) were inducted, respectively w.e.f 15-6-76 and 31-7-76 in the suit premises.3. the suit was instituted on 11-9-75,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.G. Mishra, J.

1. This is a revision directed against an order dated 26-7-77 whereby an amendment of the plaintiff's plaint based on subsequent event has been rejected by the trial court.

2. The plaintiff-applicant 'herein had filed a suit for ejectment from the suit shop on the grounds under Sections12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was alleged in the plaint that at the time of the Institution of the suit two sub-tenants namely, Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel and Rameshwar Dayal were occupying the suit premises but later on the said subtenants had vacated and other subtenants, namely, Dhan Kumar and the Bombay Textile Printers and Venus Advertisers (a partnership firm) were inducted, respectively w.e.f 15-6-76 and 31-7-76 in the suit premises.

3. The suit was instituted on 11-9-75, Thus the amendment sought by the plaintiff by his application dated 9-5-77 is based on subsequent event.

4. This application was opposed by the defendant and has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to base his suit on the ground which has come into existence during the pendency of the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant relies on Order 7, Rule 7 read with Order 6, Rule 17 C. P. C. and argues that the court has power to allow amendment based on subsequent event, He also places reliance on the ratio of Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor and General Traders (AIR 1975 SC 1409).

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed,

7. Ordinarily the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stand at the date of its institution. But where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate or that it is necessary to have the decision of the Courts on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or do complete, justice between the parties, it is incumbent upon a court of justice to take notice of events which have happened since the institution of the suit and to mould its decree according to the circumstances as they stand at the time the decree is made. I am fortified in this view by the dictum laid down in Mandli Prasad Ramcharanlal v. Ramcharanlal (AIR 1948 Nag 1') and Dhan Singh v. Badri Prasad (AIR 1963 Raj 198).

8. The learned trial judge has acted contrary to these principles. It is no doubt true that inducting in of new subtenants during the pendency of the suit constitutes a new cause of action; but the cause of action as shown, appears to have arisen from the action of the defendant which was not in the control of the plaintiff-landlord, therefore in the altered circumstances, it was necessary to permit the plaintiff to incorporate the subsequent events in the plaint and effect amendment in the light thereof. Leave to amend can be granted and must be granted to effect the amendment based on events which have happened since the institution of the suit. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu (AIR 1975 SC 1409) have held as under:-- (at p. 1410)

'For making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take caulious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.

Where, during the pendency of a proceeding under Rent Control Legislation by the landlord for permission to evict the tenants, a subsequent event in the facts of the case takes place which has a material bearing on the landlord's right to evict, the approach of the High Court In revision, in taking cognizance of the new development cannot be said to be wrong or illegal.'

9. In this view of the matter, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the amendment prayed for by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. The trial court will permit the plaintiff to effect the amendment on 10-2-78. The defendant will also be permitted to make consequential amendment in the written statement in accordance with law. Since nobody has appeared to oppose this revision I make no order as to costs. The record of the trial Court be sent so as to reach there before 10-2-78.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //