JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a revisional application against judgment and order dated July 21, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 186 of 2003. 2. By the order impugned, the learned trial judge rejected an application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The suit was instituted, inter alia, on the grounds of default and for unauthorised additions and alterations. 4. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to state certain subsequent events, that is, the defendant had substantially damaged the suit premises by demolishing the existing latrine and the kitchen during the pendency of the suit. 5. Such allegations are, however, not admitted by the defendant. 6. The application for amendment was rejected by the learned trial judge failed to appreciate as to how such innocuous prayer was rejected. The learned judge opined that the aforesaid subsequent events were not required to be incorporated in the plaint by amendment, but such statement could brought in as evidence. 7. If essential fact is lacking in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot adduce evidence of such facts. 8. Supreme Court of India in National Textile Corporation Limited –versus- Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others reported in (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 695 held that a party has to take proper pleadings and prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence. No evidence can be permitted to be adduced on an issue unless factual foundation has been laid down in respect of the same. 9. Moreover, amendment based on facts arising after suit as a result of subsequent events should be allowed in proper cases to shorten litigation and for ends of justice. 10. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. 11. The revisional application is, thus, allowed. 12. The application for amendment of the plaint is allowed. The plaintiff is directed to file the amended plaint by one week after the reopening of the Civil Court for the year 2013. 13. Liberty is granted to the defendant to file his additional written statement, if any, within a fortnight from the date of service of copy of the amended plaint on his learned advocate in the court below. 14. This is a suit of the year 1986. 13. Liberty is granted to the defendant to file his additional written statement, if any, within a fortnight from the date of service of copy of the amended plaint on his learned advocate in the court below. 14. This is a suit of the year 1986. Therefore, I request the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit peremptorily by February 2014 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. I make no order as to costs.