JUDGMENT Order dated 4.11.92 passed by the 1st. Additional District Judge at Alipore, 24-Parganas, allowing an application under Order 6 rule 17 read with Order 8 rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure for amendment of the plaint is impugned in this revisional application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The O. Ps. as plaintiffs, filed Title suit No. 123 of 1977 for eviction of the petitioner-defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation. The Learned Munsif by his judgment dismissed the suit, against which Title Appeal No. 771 of 1980 was preferred and the Learned 1st. Additional District Judge allowed the appeal reversing the judgment of the Learned Munsif. Against this decision, a 2nd appeal being S.A. No. 1001 of 1982 was taken and A.K. Bhattacharjee, J. by his order dated 21st March, 1991 remanded back the matter to the 1st. Appellate Court "for a fresh decision according to law in the light of the observations made above. The parties would be allowed to adduce fresh evidence if they so liked." It appears from the said judgment that during the hearing of the 2nd. Appeal the appellant tenant filed a petition stating that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent landlord and acquired some more accommodation as some of them had moved to a newly purchased flat. It was accordingly urged that this subsequent event affecting the position as to landlord's accommodation should be taken into account and the matter should be remanded to the lower court for a fresh decision taking into consideration the changed circumstances. Against the same, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent landlord that inspite of availability of some additional accommodation, the accommodation in a rented house should not be considered as suitable accommodation fulfilling landlord's requirement. Considering the submissions of the learned advocates of both sides the learned Judge in the 2nd Appeal held that in his opinion "The lower court should be directed to have its own views of the matter afresh in consideration of the merits of the case in the changed circumstances alleged". With this observation, the prayer for remand was allowed and the final order passed as already quoted above. 3. With this observation, the prayer for remand was allowed and the final order passed as already quoted above. 3. After the remand, the appellant landlord filed the petition under Order 6 rule 17 read with Order 8 rule 9 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and from the schedule to the proposed amendment it appears that the appellant played for deletion of paragraphs 9(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint and instead, for incorporation of three new paragraphs wherein all the subsequent events relating to acquisition of additional accommodation and fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the requirement was sought to be stated afresh. 4. In the impugned order the learned Court below stated that although in the remand order there was no direction to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint, yet as he was to form his own views afresh in consideration of the merits of the case due to the changed circumstances as per direction of this court, the prayer for amendment was being allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the said decision the tenant respondent has come up with the present revisional application. 6. Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there was no direction of the 2nd. Appellate Court to allow amendment of the plaint by the lower court. He contended that when the evidences already adduced by the parties could not be obliterated there was no point in allowing deletion of a portion of the plaint and incorporation of new set of facts in its place. He argued that the remand order being specific, namely, to allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence regarding the subsequent event and to make a fresh decision keeping in view the subsequent event, neither the 1st. Appellate Court was competent to allow amendment of the pleading nor this court in revision can sit on appeal over the said direction and consider desirability for approval or disapproval of the proposed amendment. Mr. Asoke Banerjee, appearing for the O.P. on the other hand, argued that unless the changed circumstances appeared in the pleading of the parties, he was at a loss to understand how evidence could be adduced in the matter and a fresh decision made. In the opinion of Mr. Mr. Asoke Banerjee, appearing for the O.P. on the other hand, argued that unless the changed circumstances appeared in the pleading of the parties, he was at a loss to understand how evidence could be adduced in the matter and a fresh decision made. In the opinion of Mr. Banerjee no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the amendment is allowed as the learned Court below had already ordered filing of an additional written statement and both parties would then adduce fresh evidence. 7. There is no direction in the remand order for amendment of the plaint by deletion and incorporation. By the amendment order the parties were given liberty to adduce further evidence regarding the changed circumstances, the pleading and evidence on record remaining intact. If Mr. Banerjee's contention is to be accepted, then there will be a de novo trial which does not appear to be the desire of the 2nd. Appellate Court, nor at all required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It appears that in the suit the learned Munsif framed issues No. 5 and 9 as follows :- "5. Do the plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for own use and occupation? 9. Are the plaintiffs in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere ?" 9. The changed circumstances, namely, availability of more space for accommodation of the family whether would amount to sufficient accommodation of the landlord and whether the landlord is in possession of a reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere and in that content whether the suit premises is still reasonably required by the landlord after the purchase of a flat and moving out of a few members of the family to the said flat, can very well be decided on the basis of evidences already on record and on the basis of evidences that may be adduced by both sides. The open remand in so far as the changed circumstances are concerned rather gives more liberty to the parties to put forward their cases in respect thereof than on the basis of amended pleading thereby complicating fresh consideration in the matter. Considering all aspects I am of the view that the proposed amendment which is beyond the authority given by the order of remand is unnecessary and the learned Additional District Judge was not Justified in allowing the petition for amendment. 10. Considering all aspects I am of the view that the proposed amendment which is beyond the authority given by the order of remand is unnecessary and the learned Additional District Judge was not Justified in allowing the petition for amendment. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the revisional application succeeds. The impugned order stands set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to allow the parties to adduce further evidence relating to the changed circumstances and on the basis of the evidences already on record and the additional evidences that may be adduced he is to decide afresh issues No. 5 and 9 and also the facts of the appeal. Decision in respect of the other issues already arrived at may not be disturbed. There shall be no order as to cost. As the matter is pending for a long past, the learned Additional District Judge is directed to take expeditious steps for disposal preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order.