Kaushalya Devi Vohra vs Mohinder Lal Gupta

B.N. Kirpal, J.—Special leave granted.

The appellant had filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need against two tenants. The trial Court allowed the petition and the lower appellate Court affirmed the said decision.

Smt. Tara Sharma who was one of the tenants then filed a civil revision but the same was dismissed by the High Court on 7/05/1997. The respondent also filed a civil revision. It appears that the respondent had filed an application for amendment of the written statement before the lower appellate Court which had been dismissed. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code allowed the amendment of the written statement, set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision. This is notwithstanding the fact that the civil revision of the other tenant had been dismissed by the same Hon''ble Judge thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.

It was observed by the High Court that the application for amendment was dismissed by the lower appellate Court by a cryptic order. We do not find the order of the High Court, which has reversed the lower appellate court''s decision, giving any reasons for reversal of the lower appellate court''s decision. The High Court has merely observed that on the facts and circumstances of the case the application for amendment should have been allowed. In the background stated hereinabove, when the plea of bona fide requirement had been accepted by the trial court as well as the lower appellate Court, we see little justification, in the High Court interfering and allowing the amendment to the pleadings and then directing a fresh decision on merits.

We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and we hold that the amendment should not have been allowed and the decision of the lower appellate Court dismissing the amendment application was correct. As the High Court has not decided the other questions which were raised, Civil Revision No. 268/96 should be decided by the High Court afresh. It is not necessary that Civil Revision No. 268/96 should now be heard by the same Hon''ble Judge.