Piray Lal Dhar vs Sardar Jasbir Singh

In a suit for ejectment, pending between the parties, in the court of the Second Addl. Munsiff Srinagar, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint on

two grounds, firstly, that the tenancy had been validly terminated, and secondly, that the suit property was needed by the plaintiff for

reconstruction. The trial court disallowed the amendment. Agrrieved by this order, the plaintiff come up in revision to this court.

Before me the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the trial court was not justified in refusing the admendment of

the plaint for inclusion of the plaintiff's need for reconstruction as a ground for ejectment. The trial court, it may be noted, has rejected on the

ground that the application was belated. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that assuming that it was belated, the other side

could be compensated by way of costs. The counsel for the respondent tried to resist the argument on the ground that the plaintiff could have made

it a ground for ejectment when he originally filed the plaint and that the amendment now sought by him was not bonafide. There is nothing in law to

prevent the plaintiff from seeking the amendment of the plaint in order to seek the ejectment on additional ground, provided, of course, the ground

alleged is bonafide. The authorities have gone to the extent of allowing the amendment even after the period prescribed for filing the suit has

expired, the conition, being that the facts have already been pleaded in the plaint. That consideration does not arise in the present case, Here the

question is whether the amendment sought is bonafide. That is a question of fact. For aught we know that the condition of the house has

deteriorated during the pendency of the suit making it necessary for the plaintiff to seek ejectment on the ground of reconstruction. In the

circumstances, merely because the plaint did not include this as a ground for ejactment when it was originally filed, it cannot be said that the

amendment is malafide. It is ture that amendment has been claimed at a late stage. For that the defendant can be adequately compensated by way

of costs. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court ought to have appropriately allowed the amendment enabling the plaintiff to include the

need for reconstruction as an additional ground for ejectment in the plaint. The view to the contrary expressed by the trial court vitiates its order.

The order is liable to be set aside.

Allowing this revision, I set aside the order to the extent the trial court has declined the plaintiff to make the second amendment mentioned

above. It is directed that the trial court shall allow the plaintiff to make such amendment in the plaint. The order shall, however, be subject to the

condition that the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 100/ (rupees one hundred) as costs and also files the amended plaint within a period of two weeks

from today. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 5th of June, 1982.