2026 INSC 416

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 1 of 16

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.8991 OF 2025)

VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH APPELLANT

VERSUS

NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA RESPONDENTS

AND ANOTHER

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. I.A. No.102914 of 2025 is allowed. Names of respondent

Nos.3 and 4 are deleted from the array of parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The question that arises for consideration in this civil

appeal is whether the Court can examine the merits/demerits

of the case while considering the prayer for grant of leave to

amend the plaint. Consequentially, can the amendment of the

plaint sought by the legal heirs of the landlord be refused on

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 2 of 16

the ground that after the death of the landlord, the claim for

eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need no longer

survives.

4. The father of the appellant – Raghunath Gopal

Deshmukh was the owner of a shop situated on the ground

floor ad-measuring about 188 square feet that was let out to

the father of the respondents as a monthly tenant. The

landlord on 28.11.2005 filed a suit for eviction of the tenants

inter alia, that the tenants were in arrears of rent, they had

carried out alterations of permanent nature, there was

bonafide need of the landlord and his family members as

regards the tenanted premises and that the tenants had sub-

let the premises to a sub-tenant. In paragraph 4 of the plaint,

it was pleaded as under:-

“4. The Plaintiff states that, the abovementioned shop i.e. shop

no.2, is required to the Plaintiff, for the bonafide use, occupation

and enjoyment for himself and their family members……..”

5. The respondents filed their written statement and

opposed the suit for eviction. They denied the entire case as

sought to be made out by the landlord. In response to the

averments as regards bonafide need of the suit premises, it was

pleaded in paragraph 3 as under:-

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 3 of 16

“3. With reference to para 4 of the Plaint, these Defendants

emphatically and in toto deny that the Plaintiff reasonably and

bonafide require the suit premises for himself and his family

members as alleged……...The son of the Plaintiff is employed with

a multi-national company and drawing handsome salary from the

company…………”

6. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the

parties framed various issues. Issue No.3 with regard to the

claim for bonafide need was framed by the Trial Court which

reads as under:-

“3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises are

reasonably and bonafide required by him for occupation by himself

or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held ?”

7. The landlord examined himself while the tenants

examined one witness. The Trial Court, after consideration of

the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that

though the landlord wanted to start business of a general

store, he had not decided the exact nature of business that he

intended to start. This, according to the Trial Court, created a

doubt about the intentions of the landlord. It, therefore,

recorded a finding that the landlord had failed to prove his

bonafide need. The other issues as framed were also answered

against the landlord and consequently, on 29.11.2016 the Trial

Court dismissed the suit for eviction.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 4 of 16

8. The landlord being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment

preferred an appeal challenging the decree. During pendency

of the appeal, the landlord expired on 24.07.2022 .

Consequently, the legal heirs got themselves impleaded in the

appeal. After such impleadment, the appellant as a legal heir

of the landlord filed an application seeking leave to amend the

plaint. In the said application he referred to the averments

made in paragraph 4 of the plaint that originally the landlord

had pleaded the bonafide need for himself and his family

members. As per the proposed amendment, it was stated that

the appellant’s wife was an advocate and was operating her

office from a 100 square feet block that was situated behind

the said building. As a result, it was stated that she was having

less practice. She intended to practise from the suit premises

as it was facing the main road. It was further stated that the

appellant’s son had completed his education and intended to

start medical practise. On this basis, the need of the legal heirs

was sought to be pleaded.

9. The application for amendment was opposed by the

respondents. In paragraph 5 of the said reply, it was admitted

that in the suit, the landlord had pleaded that the suit

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 5 of 16

premises was required for himself and his family members. It

was, however, stated that subsequently the need of the family

members was given up. It was further stated that the legal

heirs of the original landlord could not put forward their

bonafide need by amending the plaint.

By filing a rejoinder, the appellant denied that the claim

of the original landlord was restricted only with regard to his

bonafide need. It was reiterated that the family was in need of

the suit premises.

10. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court

1

considered the application for amendment of the plaint. It

noted that when the suit was initially filed, the bonafide

requirement of the landlord, his son and wife had been

pleaded. It held that by virtue of the amendment as sought, no

adverse plea was being introduced nor was any admission

made earlier being withdrawn. With a view to avoid multiplicity

of proceedings and to decide all the questions arising, the

Appellate Bench held the amendment to be necessary. It,

accordingly, permitted the amendment subject to payment of

1

For short, ‘the Appellate Bench’

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 6 of 16

costs of ₹15,000/-. It further directed that after the plaint was

amended, the issue of bonafide requirement be referred to the

Trial Court and granted liberty to the respondents to amend

the written statement. Permission was also granted to both

parties to adduce evidence in this regard.

11. The tenants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the

Appellate Bench permitting amendment to the plaint

challenged the same by filing a writ petition under Article 227

of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court

2. A

learned Single Judge after hearing the parties held that the

original landlord had not pleaded that his son, daughter-in-

law or grandson also needed the premises for their use. He had

admitted in his cross-examination that his son and daughter-

in-law did not require the premises. Allowing the amendment

as sought by the legal heirs would, therefore, amount to

introducing a totally new case that was inconsistent with what

was pleaded by the original landlord. It was, thus, held that

with the death of the original landlord, his need had eclipsed

and the need that was now sought to be raised by amending

2

For short, “the High Court”

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 7 of 16

the plaint was contradictory to the evidence led by the

landlord. It was further held that the legal heirs of the original

landlord could file a fresh suit for eviction based on their claim

for bonafide requirement. Accordingly, by the judgment dated

07.08.2024, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set

aside the order passed by the Appellate Bench allowing the

amendment application. Liberty was granted to the legal heirs

to file a fresh suit on the basis of the cause of action that was

sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. Being

aggrieved, the son of the original landlord has come up in

appeal.

12. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the

appellant submitted that the High Court erred in setting aside

the order passed by the Appellate Bench allowing the

amendment to the plaint by going into the merits of the case.

In the suit as originally filed, the landlord had pleaded about

the requirement for himself and his family members. Without

noticing these pleadings, the High Court proceeded on the

premise that what was pleaded in the plaint was only the

bonafide requirement of the original landlord. Even if it was

assumed that the original landlord did not depose about the

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 8 of 16

bonafide need of his family members, that would not preclude

the legal heirs of the original landlord from bringing on record

subsequent events to substantiate their bonafide requirement.

The Appellate Bench was justified in holding that if the legal

heirs of the original landlord could file a fresh suit for eviction,

the plaint could be permitted to be amended in view of

subsequent events. Moreover, liberty was granted to the

tenants to oppose the claim made by the legal heirs on merits.

Therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to the tenants

even if the amendment was allowed. It was, thus, submitted

that the Appellate Bench having exercised discretion in favour

of the legal heirs of the original landlord and having permitted

the plaint to be amended, the High Court erred in interfering

with such discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. It was, thus, urged that the impugned judgment was

liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Appellate

Bench ought to be upheld.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, learned

Senior Advocate for the respondents supported the impugned

judgment. According to him, the High Court correctly found

that the original landlord in his deposition had clearly stated

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 9 of 16

that he alone had bonafide requirement of the suit premises.

He did not depose about the need of his son and daughter-in-

law. After the death of the original landlord, the suit could not

be continued. It was rightly found that if at all the legal heirs

of the original landlord had any bonafide requirement, they

could initiate fresh proceedings by filing another suit. Such

liberty had been granted to them by the High Court. The

impugned judgment having taken into consideration the legal

position as prevailing, there was no need to interfere with the

impugned judgment. No prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to

the legal heirs of the original landlord. It was, thus, submitted

that the impugned judgment did not warrant any interference

and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the material on record, we are of the

considered view that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not justified

in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Appellate

Bench allowing the amendment to the plaint.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 10 of 16

15. Undisputedly, the Appellate Bench entertained the

application seeking amendment to the plaint moved by the

legal heirs of the landlord in the light of the fact that the

landlord had expired during pendency of the appeal. It

specifically noted in paragraph 16 of its order that the landlord

had filed the suit on account of bonafide requirement of himself

and his family members . It further observed that the

paramount need as pleaded was of the landlord. After finding

that the legal heirs did not seek to introduce any plea that was

adverse to that of the landlord, the amendment was allowed.

Liberty was granted to the tenants to consequentially amend

the written statement.

The finding recorded by the Appellate Court that in the

suit, the landlord had pleaded that the suit premises were

required reasonably and bonafidely for occupation by himself

and his family members is clear on perusal of paragraph 4 of

the plaint. Issue No.3 was also framed by the Trial Court in the

light of such pleadings. The tenants were aware of this fact and

in paragraph 5 of their reply to the amendment application,

they too referred to this aspect. Despite this position on record,

the High Court proceeded on the premise that in the plaint, it

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 11 of 16

was only the need of the landlord that was pleaded and not the

need of his family members. Observations in this regard can

be found in paragraphs 23 and 25 of the impugned order. The

same are found to be factually incorrect. It may be true that in

his deposition, the landlord deposed about only his

requirement and not that of his family members. But that is a

matter to be considered on merits of the claim and not while

determining the permissibility of the amendment.

It is, thus, clear that the High Court misdirected itself by

failing to notice the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the plaint that

have been reproduced hereinabove. This has result ed in

vitiating the impugned order.

16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is

that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate

Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled

that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for

the High Court to review or reassess the material that was

taken into consideration by the Court while passing the

impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 12 of 16

decision in Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia

3,

wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:

“11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case

which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment.

This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is

not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up

will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High

Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article

227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company

4, this Court

has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High

Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior

court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its

jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the

High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not

open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior

court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the

considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the

written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no

reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.”

Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench

while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered

with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

especially when there was no error of jurisdiction nor a

statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on

subsequent events.

17. Coming to the reasoning adopted by the High Court that

on the death of the original landlord, his bonafide need would

3

2017 INSC 1240

4

(2003) 3 SCC 524

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 13 of 16

come to an end and that his/her legal heir would not be able

to seek eviction on the basis of their bonafide need, suffice it

to observe that this proposition cannot have a blanket

application. The same would depend on the facts and

circumstances of each case. No doubt, the principle that the

rights of the parties have to be adjudicated keeping in mind

the rights existing at the commencement of the lis. Where

however subsequent events having a material bearing on the

entitlement of the parties to relief occur, the Court is not

precluded from taking cognizance of the same and moulding

the relief in accordance with law. In this regard, we may refer

to the decision of this Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs.

The Motor & General Traders

5

wherein it has been held as

under:

“First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis a vis circumstances

which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the

proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the

right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor

institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that

procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial

process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a

fundamental impact on the right to relief for the ma nner of

moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it

cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render

inept the decrotal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of

procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with

5

1975 INSC 75

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 14 of 16

a view to promote substantial justice--subject, of course, to the

absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can

we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of

updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends,

the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling

resort to that course in law or justice.

We affirm the proposition that 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 cautious cognisance of events and

developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding

provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously

obeyed.”

18. Yet another factor that impelled the High Court to

interfere was the direction of the Appellate Bench in remanding

the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship to the Trial

Court for recording evidence and returning a finding in that

regard. According to the High Court, the Trial Court had

neither omitted to frame such issue nor had failed to try the

same when it decided the suit. Hence, exercise of power by the

Appellate Bench under provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

6 was uncalled for. While it is true

that the Trial Court did not omit to frame or try the issue with

regard to bonafide requirement of the landlord, the Appellate

Court could always exercise power under Order XLI Rule 25 of

6

For short, “the Code”

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 15 of 16

the Code and frame an issue so as to “determine any question

of fact which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the

right decision of the suit upon the merits.” Such power can be

exercised by the Appellate Court if it appears to it essential to

the right decision of the suit on merits. It has to be exercised

in the facts and circumstances of the case when found

necessary by the Appellate Court for arriving at a right decision

in the suit.

In the facts of the present case, we do not find that the

Appellate Bench committed an error when it exercised its

jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code and referred

the issue of bonafide requirement to the Trial Court pursuant

to the plaint being amended. Liberty had been granted to the

defendants to amend the written statement and thereafter to

both parties to lead evidence. Hence, even on this count the

order of the Appellate Bench was not liable to be interfered

with.

19. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, we set aside

the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the High Court in

Writ Petition No.5976 of 2024. Consequently, the order passed

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 16 of 16

below Exhibit 38 by the Appellate Bench on 05.04.2024 stands

restored. The directions issued in the said order shall now

operate. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on

08.06.2026. The Trial Court is free to thereafter decide the

schedule of further proceedings keeping in mind the directions

issued by the Appellate Bench in its order dated 05.04.2024.

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits

of the claim of either party and the proceedings be decided on

their own merits in accordance with law.

20. The Civil Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

…………………………..J.

[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

….…..………………………..J.

[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]

NEW DELHI,

APRIL 24

th, 2026.