Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 11th of August, 1988, passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1989, passed in Title Suit No. 158. of 1978, by the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. 2. The plaintiffs suit was for eviction of the defendants from the lease hold premises on the ground that they have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the lease as also on the ground of personal necessity. 3. The defendants in their written statement stated that the case of the plaintiffs of personal necessity was false and concocted. It was further stated that as the terms of the lease was void and unworkable, even the defendants could not fulfil such terms and conditions of the lease, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to maintain the suit on such issue. However, the suit was decreed holding that the defendants are liable for eviction. 4. The defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, filed Title Appeal No. 15 of 1985, which was ultimately allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. The appellants being aggrieved, prefered this appeal. 5. While this appeal was pending before this Court, an application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the terms and period of lease (Exhibit 5) expired on 2-87-1988, therefore, the plaintiffs intend to claim eviction on the basis of termination of tenancy. Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 why the petition for amendment of the plaint be not allowed. Ultimately, the parties were heard before a learned Single Judge of this Court and by order dated 25-3-1991, the prayer for amendment was rejected, on the ground that the period of lease expired on 29-7-1988 and the judgment of the lower appellate Court was delivered on 11-8-1988. The terms of lease had expired during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. The terms of lease had expired during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. It was held that although amendment of the plaint can be allowed at any stage and a Court can take notice of subsequent events, but in this case, the subsequent event took place during the pendency of the first appeal before the lower appellate Court. The appellants, according to his Lordship, should have taken steps at the appropriate stage. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was held that such amendment cannot be allowed in this Second Appeal. 6. Thereafter this appeal was placed for hearing under Order XL1, Rule 11 of the Code before another learned Judge of this Court. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials, his Lordship was of the view that amendment of a plaint can be allowed even at the stage of Second Appeal even though subsequent events might have taken place before the lower appellate Court. In that view of the matter, this appeal was directed to be placed before a Division Bench for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code. 7. Admittedly, the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiffs and they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease which expired on 29-7-1988. The plaintiffs suit was for eviction of the defendants on the ground of personal necessity as also there has been breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. Basic relief what has been sought in the suit is for a decree of eviction against the defendants. 8. It is, no bodys case that as per the terms of the lease, the defendants can claim for its renewal. It is well-settled that with respect to subsequent events, which may take place during the pendency of a suit or even at the appellate stage, the plantiffs can lay claim for amendment of a plaint with respect to the subsequent cause of action in relation to the same relief. By order dated 25-3-1991, no doubt the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint was rejected on the ground that such application should have been filed before the lower appellate Court as the subsequent event took place at that stage. It is difficult to subscribe aforesaid view. By order dated 25-3-1991, no doubt the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint was rejected on the ground that such application should have been filed before the lower appellate Court as the subsequent event took place at that stage. It is difficult to subscribe aforesaid view. The rule of conduct of the Code is that howsoever negligent or careless the first omission might have been and howsoever is the late proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. 9. Mr. Debi Prasad, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that this Court can take notice of a subsequent event for the purpose of making an adjudication final so as to dispose of the dispute between the parties, finally. He further contended that in view of introduction of new Rule 43 under Order XLI of the Code, the appellate Court can pass such an order and judgment which ought to have been passed by the Court of the first instance. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over a decision in the case of Ranvjaya Sahai V/s. Bala Prasad Nothani 1978 BLJR 259 . The facts of the said case are more or less identical to the present one. It would be useful to reproduce a relevant finding from the aforesaid report : It is a well-settled principle that a Court takes supervening and subsequent events into consideration only for the purpose of making an adjudication final so as to dispose of the dispute between the parties finally and thus shorten the litigation. In that view of the matter, in the present case, there can be no possible defence, justifying any right in the appellant to continue as a lessee after the termination of the lease. An order of eviction has, therefore, to be granted. Mr. Prasad also placed reliance over a case of Rameshwar and Ors. V/s. Jot Ram and Ors. -- . While considering the impact of subsequent event, Happening during the course of trial or at the appellate stage, their Lordships held as follows in paragraph 9 of the report : Where a cause of action is deficient but later events have made up the deficiency, the Court may, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, permit amendment and continue the proceeding, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. All these are done only in exceptional situations and just cannot be done if the statute, on which the legal proceeding is based, inhibits, by its scheme or otherwise, such change in cause of action or relief. The primary concern of the Court is to implement the justice of the legislation. Rights vested by virtue of a statute cannot be diverted by this equitabie doctrine. 10. Mr. Tapan Sen, Advocate, on the other hand contended that in view of the amendment petition of the plaintiffs having been rejected, it is not now open to this Court to grant any relief on the basis of the subsequent cause of action. According to him, at best the plaintiff-appellants can maintain a fresh suit on the basis of the subsequent event. It is further urged that there is no scope in a second appeal to reappraise the matter afresh. In case the amendment is allowed or the Court decides to grant relief to the plaintiffs on the basis of fresh cause of action, the case has to be remanded back for introducing additional evidence or fresh evidence. In support of his contention, Mr. Sen placed reliance over the case of Vineet Kumar V/s. Mangal Sain Wadhera AIR 1985 817, to urge that normally amendment should not be allowed ii it changes the cause of action. According to him, in the present case, the suit was for eviction on the ground of breach of the terms of tenancy and personal necessity. To maintain a suit for eviction on the basis of termination of tenancy, as its terra has expired, the plaintiffs will have to maintain a fresh suit. It would be useful to reproduce hereunder a passage of paragraph 16 of the report from -- (supra) as follows : Normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action But it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation He has also placed reliance over the case of Kumaraswami Gounder and Ors. V/s. D.R. Nanjappa Gounder and Ors. -- . V/s. D.R. Nanjappa Gounder and Ors. -- . It was held that if an amendment sets up a totally different cause of action, which ex facie cannot stand on a line with the original pleading, the Court should not allow such amendment. A pleading can only be amended if it is to substantiate, elucidate and expand the pre-existing facts already contained in the original pleading. But under the guise of an amendment, a new cause and case cannot be substituted and the Court cannot be asked to adjudicate the alternative case, instead OL the original case. The application for amendment should be bona fide and not after thought. It has been contended by Mr. Sen that appellants should have moved an application for amendment before the first appellate Court. Their claim for amendment at this stage is afterthought and thus lacks bona fide. 11. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the propositions as laid down in the aforementioned judgments. But since the facts of the present case are quite different, therefore, they cannot help the defendants to settle down the issue. It is well-settled that a Court either hearing first appeal or second appeal, as the case may be, can take notice of a subsequent event and allow the patties to amend the plaint for ends of justice in order to make adjudication, so as to dispute of the dispute between the parties finally, in order to shorten and avoid multiplicity of litigation. But in the instant case, since the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code, riled by the appellants has been rejected by this Court holding that such an application should have been filed before the lower appellate Court, as the cause of action arose at that stage, it would not be proper to allow the plaintiffs to maintain this Second appeal with respect to the subsequent cause of action which took place on account of the expiry of the lease. 12. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances for the ends of justice, as also in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the case is remanded to the first appellate court, for adjudication and finding with respect to an issue which has arisen on account of subsequent event, as noticed above. 12. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances for the ends of justice, as also in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the case is remanded to the first appellate court, for adjudication and finding with respect to an issue which has arisen on account of subsequent event, as noticed above. The partirs to the suit shall be at liberty to make suitable amendment/amendments with respect to their pleadings in this regard and lead evidence in accordance with law. Since this is a suit for eviction of the year 1985, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties. The parties to the suit are directed to appear before the first appellate Court forthwith. The appellate Court below shall not interfere with the findings which were recorded earlier in the judgment of T. A. 15 of 1985. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.N.Prasad, J. 13 I agree.