The Bombay High Court deliberated on whether a new need, different from the one originally pleaded in the plaint, could be introduced at the appellate stage. The case involved the eviction of tenants from a shop in Mumbai, initially sought by the original plaintiff on the grounds of bonafide requirement for opening a general store. During the appeal, following the original plaintiff's death, his son sought to amend the plaint to introduce new requirements, including using the premises for consultancy services, legal practice, and medical practice by his family members.

1. Background of the Case

• Original Suit: The original plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of tenants from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment, illegal construction, and bonafide requirement.
• Trial Court Decision: The suit was dismissed, rejecting all grounds raised by the plaintiff.
• Appeal and Amendment: During the appeal, the original plaintiff passed away, and his son sought to amend the plaint, introducing new needs for the property.

2. Legal Issues

• Jurisdiction Under Order 41 Rule 25: Whether the appellate court has the jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage and remit the matter for fresh findings on new issues.
• Substitution of Cause of Action: The question of whether the new needs of the plaintiff's heirs can replace the original bonafide requirement pleaded by the deceased plaintiff.

3. Arguments

• For the Petitioner: The amendment changes the nature of the original suit, which was based on the deceased plaintiff’s personal need, now superseded by the needs of his family. This change, argued the petitioner, contradicts the original case and should not be allowed at the appellate stage.
• For the Respondent: The respondent argued that since an appeal is a continuation of the suit, any changes in circumstances, including the death of the original plaintiff, should allow the heirs to amend the plaint to reflect their bonafide requirements.

4. Court’s Consideration

• Continuity of Bonafide Requirement: The court considered whether the bonafide requirement of the heirs can be integrated into the ongoing appeal or if a fresh suit is necessary.
• Impact on Procedural Fairness: The implications of allowing such amendments at the appellate stage, potentially prolonging litigation and complicating the trial process, were also discussed.

5. Conclusion

The court's decision in this matter will set a precedent on the permissibility and limits of amending pleadings at the appellate stage, especially when the original plaintiff is no longer alive, and the needs of their heirs come into play.