Judgment:
Farooq Hassan, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court on an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, for seeking amendment in his written statement, which was rejected by the trial court on May 2, 1986.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of rent and ejectment from the rented shop on the ground of personal necessity. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant that the landlord-plaintiff was having one shop in Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli duly allotted to him and the non-petitioner-plaintiff has already started carrying on his business in it, and that, the [plaintiff-land lord was also having shop in Katla, Kotputli in his possession which is lying vacant. As such, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, seeking amendment in the written statement and narrated the aforesaid facts. The point of comparative hardship was also mentioned. It was prayed in the said application that in the interest of justice and in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, the defendant-petitioner should be allowed to amend his written statement. The said application seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed by the trial court vide an order under challenge in this revision petition simply on the ground that after the rejection of the defendant's application dated 10-1-1986 on 22-1-1986, it (trial court) does not find any reason to allow second application filed on 25-2-1986. It was further observed by the trial court that it has not specifically been mentioned in the application that from whom the plaintiff-non-petitioner received the possession of the shop situated in Katla Kotputli & as to when in the shop situated at Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli non-petitioner commenced carrying on his business, and the defendant-petitioner failed to point out fresh facts.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri B.L. Mandhana. The learned Advocate for the defendant-petitioner, contended that the suit for eviction is filed by the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity which has been denied by the defendant and so when the petitioner-defendant is subsequently alleging that the plaintiff-non-petitioner is having two shops in his occupation and is carrying on his business in the shop situated in Krishi Grain Mandi Kotputli and on these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff fails; these alleged facts are very much relevant for the purposes of deciding the real controversy between the parties, and the learned trial court committed an error in dismissing the application, argued Shri Mandhna.
4. Shri Rajendra Soni, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner plaintiff, submitted that the application for amendment has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial court.
5. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the parties it is an admitted fact that the facts alleged by she petitioner are claimed to have been known to him after the filing of written statement. There is no ambiguity that the petitioner has mentioned in his application for amendment in the written statement that the plaintiff-non-petitioner was having two shops one in Katla and the other one in Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli and the plaintiff-non-petitioner (land lord) has started his business in one of the aforesaid shop situated in Krishi Grain Mandi.
6. It is also admitted fact that the plaintiff non-petitioner did not file any reply and rebut the facts mentioned in the petitioner's application seeking amendment. I am of the view that there was no ambiguity in the application in dispute and the petitioner has made assertion in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, which has not been denied by the plaintiff-non-petitioner before the trial court.
7. In Shikharchand v. D.J.P. Karini Sabha : [1974]3SCR101 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:
Even if the assertions made in the application for amendment of the written statement were found to be true, the defendant would not have non-suited the respondent during the life-time of widow. The gift was valid during her life-time. Her death gave a fresh cause of action to the defendant who claimed to be her next reversioner. Therefore, it would be just and proper to allow the amendment sought for. It would shorten litigation.
Looking to the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case, supra this much is clear that it is open to a Court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford the relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has; (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become in appropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation; or (3) to do complete justice between the parties. If the aforesaid circumstances exist then it becomes the duty of Court to allow amendment even at the Stage of appeal In the instant case, real controversy between the parties was, whether the plaintiff non-petitioner was having personal necessity of the shop in, question. The defendant-petitioner denied the facts alleged in the plaint. It is not necessary for the defendant contesting the suit for eviction that he roust know of whole of the property of the plaintiff-land lord and also know as to which of the property is lying vacant or is in the occupation of some other persons: But, when it is learnt and known to the contesting defendant and if he requests the Court that the facts known to him later on may be allowed to be brought on record then in that situation, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Shikhar 3.Chund v. D.J.P. Karini Sabha (supra), his request should be allowed.
8. In these circumstances, the learned trial court was not justified in rejecting the request for amendment of the written statement of the petitioner defendant.
9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2-5-1986 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli is set aside. I allow the application of the defendant petitioner filed on 25-2-1986 under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, on payment of Rs. 50/- as costs to the plaintiff. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost amount in the trial court on or before November 29, 1986.The trial court is directed to allow the petitioner to amend the written the statement sought for, as soon as the payment of cost is made as directed above, and then to proceed further according to law.