Heard By the impugned order the learned trial Court has rejected plaintiff's application under Order 13 rule 2 and Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint, so as to incorporate the facts regarding sub-letting of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. In addition she also wanted to add one more ground as a result of defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title. Learned trial Court while placing reliance in the decision of the case of Sureshchandra v. Gopichand ( 1984 MPWN 470 ) held that an addition of ground for eviction by way of amendment was not permissible. The plaintiff in support of her ground of eviction on the ground of subletting sought leave to produce marriage invitation card on behalf of Chhotelal to whom the suit accommodation was sub-let. The marriage as was indicated in the card was celebrated on 7.12.97 and the application in question was moved in the Court on 2.2.98. The Court below felt that the contents of the card were not very specific and it could not be planted with certainty that it related to the person to whom the accommodation was sub-let and, therefore, did not allow the application. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the record, the petition deserves to be allowed. The view taken in the case Sureshchandra v. Gopichand (supra) does not appear to be correct view in the light of subsequent decision in case of Ramesh Chandra v. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in 1995 JLJ 583 . The Apex Court. In case of Majoti Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishnarao ( AIR 1989 SC 2187 ) has held that if in his counter to the eviction petition the tenant denies the title of the plaintiff, that would be a good ground for his eviction from the suit property. In the context of the legal position the order impugned is not sustainable. The ground of eviction arising out of denial of title by the defendant was available to the plaintiff and since it was made subsequent to the filing of the suit, it could naturally be incorporated by way of amendment alone. The document sought to be produced was an invitation card of marriage in support of the allegation that the suit accommodation had been sub-let. The document sought to be produced was an invitation card of marriage in support of the allegation that the suit accommodation had been sub-let. At this stage, the Court was simply concerned if the document was relevant and useful for the proper decision of the case. The genuineness of the document was not challenged and therefore there was no justification for refusal of its production. It was also not a case where the document was sought to be produced after delay. The document was a recent one. In the circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have been allowed to produce the document. In the result, the order impugned dated 16.2.1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 64A/98 by the learned Trial Judge is set aside and learned trial Court is directed to allow the petition and allow the plaintiff to incorporate the amount. Further, leave to produce the document is granted. The learned trial Court will take the document on record and proceed with the case in accordance with law.