IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.66 of 2008 ----------- Nandan Prasad, son of Ganesh Seth, resident of Mohalla Mahajan Toli, Sasaram , P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas ……Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner versus Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Ram Pukar Seth, resident of Mohalla Medar Darbaja, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. ……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Pramod Kumar and Ritesh Kumar, Advocates. For Opp. Party : None. -------- 03/ 29.10.2009 I.A. No. 159 of 2008 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of the civil revision. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that some genuine reasons have been shown, which prevented the petitioner from filing this civil revision earlier. Accordingly, I.A. No. 159 of 2008 is allowed and delay in filing of the instant civil revision is condoned. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the defendant- respondent-petitioner challenging order dated 04.10.2005 passed in Title Appeal No. 93 of 1994, by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Sasaram allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant-opposite party for amendment of her plaint of Eviction Suit No. 12 of 1986 as well as for the amendment of the memorandum of the said title appeal. 3. It transpires that the aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the sole defendant- 2 petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant and the bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises. The said suit was contested by the defendant and finally learned trial court dismissed the eviction suit holding that the plaintiff had let out the suit premises to the defendant in the year 1976 at the rate of Rs.30.00 per month and that neither there was any default in payment of rent by the defendant nor the plaintiff had any bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court in Eviction Suit No. 12 of 1986, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 93 of 1994, which remained pending on one pretext or the other and subsequently on 15.03.2005 the plaintiff-appellant- opposite party filed an application for amendment of the plaint as well as the memorandum of appeal for adding facts and relief regarding sub-letting by the defendant during the pendency of the suit in the year 1991 and also regarding default in payment of rent by the defendant during the pendency of the suit and the appeal. The said amendments were sought to be added as subsequent event. This interlocutory application has been allowed by the learned court of appeal below vide its order dated 04.10.2005, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the said order of the learned court of appeal below but the lower appellate court appears to have considered all 3 the points raised and involved in the matter and found that the claim of plaintiff-appellant was that even after adjustment of advance money, the defendant-respondent has become defaulter during the pendency of the suit as no rent was paid during that period by the defendant. 6. It was also found that the plaintiff-appellant has claimed that the defendant-respondent has sub-let the suit premises to one Bachan Seth during the pendency of the suit on 06.10.1991 and hence the said application for amendment was filed during the pendency of the appeal after getting knowledge regarding the said subsequent event. 7. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that neither the nature of the suit or appeal would change nor any undue prejudice would be caused to the defendant- respondent by the said amendments, which were necessary for full, final and complete adjudication of the controversy between the parties, specially in view of subsequent events taking place during the pendency of the case. 8. So far question of delay raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent that the title appeal is pending since 15 years and is still to be heard. Furthermore, the title appeal being continuation of the suit, the learned court of appeal below has full jurisdiction to take evidence of both the parties if required after allowing the defendant- respondent to amend her written statement only with regard to the 4 facts brought in the plaint by way of amendment by the plaintiff- appellant and, thereafter, to hear the title appeal on the issues on which the suit was decided as well as on the fresh issues, which had arisen due to subsequent events mentioned above. However, since the title appeal is pending since 1994, the learned court below is directed to expedite its hearing without giving any undue adjournment to either of the parties and to dispose it of without any further delay. 9. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with the aforesaid directions to the learned court of appeal below. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)