ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has moved this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 25.04.2016 vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff filed a suit for the disputed shop on the ground of bona fide need for his son Praveen Kumar in the year 1999. The suit was decreed during the pendency of appeal one of the son of the plaintiff Anil Kumar expired on 27.11.2013 and the shop No. 2 got vacant which fact was relevant for decision of the main suit and therefore, application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC should been allowed. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the application was rejected and the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court bearing Writ Petition No. 4422/2015 which was allowed on 19.02.2016 and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate court to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh, the appellate court has now rejected the application by the impugned order dated 25.04.2016. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 915 (Allahabad) Smt. Shahjahan v. District Judge, Faizabad & Ors., wherein the Allahabad High Court allowed the amendment at the appellate stage. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 197, jai Prakash Gupta(dead) Through Lrs. v. Riyaz Ahamad & anr., wherein the Apex Court held that a suit or an original proceeding is to be tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its commencement. The only exception to this rule is that a court may take notice of events, which have happened since the institution of suit or original proceeding and grant relief to parties on the basis of altered conditions, which is applied in cases where it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate or that it is necessary to base the decision of court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on 2010(1) Apex Court judgments 78 (SC) Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, wherein the Apex Court held that the amendment may be allowed at belated stage, if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it is necessary. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on 2010(4) Civil court Cases 234 (Rajasthan), Nirmal Kumar Rara v. PO, Rent Tribunal & Ors., which was a case where after the filing of the written statement, it came to the notice of the tenant that another premises of landlord stand vacated, the court in those circumstances allowed the amendment. 8. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition. His contention is that earlier writ petition was allowed as the appellate court while deciding the amendment application mentioned that the wife and children of Anil Kumar may use the shop No. 2 which was factually incorrect as Anil Kumar was a bachelor. It is also contended by counsel for the respondent that in the suit itself issue No. 7 and 8 were framed, pertaining to the shop No. 2 and it was for the defendant to prove that Anil Kumar was mentally challenged and the said shop can be used by Praveen Kumar. 9. It is further contended by counsel for the respondent that in the suit for eviction, the court is required to judge the issue regarding bona fide need as existed on the date of filing of the suit and subsequent events can only be taken into account if the need of landlord is completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. 10. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastave, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 803, in support of his above contention. 11. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by LR's, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2399, wherein the Apex Court held that the date on which the application for eviction is filed is the crucial date. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition the bona fide need cannot be said to have lapsed as the business can be carried by his legal heirs. 12. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on 2013(3) DNJ (Raj) 982, Jagdish Chandra & ors. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition the bona fide need cannot be said to have lapsed as the business can be carried by his legal heirs. 12. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on 2013(3) DNJ (Raj) 982, Jagdish Chandra & ors. v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Ors., wherein the Rajasthan High court has held that the bona fide need is to be seen on the date of filing of the suit. 13. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the judgment cited at Bar. The suit for eviction in this case was filed in the year 1999 and the same was decreed on 19.12.2009, the appeal of which is still pending adjudication during the pendency of the appeal one of the son of the plaintiff Anil Kumar expired on 27.11.2013 and application for amendment was filed by the defendant petitioner on 29.09.2017. The said application was earlier rejected on the ground that Anil Kumar's legal heirs may do business in shop No. 2 which order was set aside by the high Court and the matter was remanded back to the appellate court. The appellate court has now again dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with 151 CPC. 14. It is not disputed that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for shop No. 3 for his son praveen Kumar in Shop No. 1 his son Rajendra Kumar is doing business and shop No. 2 fall vacant during the pendency of the suit, it is for this reason that issue No. 7 and 8 were framed by the court pertaining to shop No. 2. Issue No. 7 and 8 were decided against the defendant petitioner. Now because of death of Anil Kumar, the defendant wants to re-agitate the issue pertaining to shop No. 2. 15. It is not in dispute that amendment can be allowed at the appellate stage but the facts of each case are different and the court is to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the facts of a particular case. In the present case, due to demise of Anil Kumar, it cannot be inferred that there is an eclipse on the claim of the plaintiff for shop No. 3. In the present case, due to demise of Anil Kumar, it cannot be inferred that there is an eclipse on the claim of the plaintiff for shop No. 3. It is also a case of the plaintiff that after demise of his son, he is looking after the video game business which was being running in shop No. 2, even otherwise as held in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastave (Supra), which refers to (1955) 1 SCC 770, Pusupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, wherein the three judge Bench of Apex Court held that cognizance of subsequent event should be taken from cautiously. The Court observed as under:- "We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed". 16. Considering the fact that the dispute pertaining to shop No. 2 was taken up before the court during the pendency of the suit and demise of Anil Kumar has not eclipsed the claim of the landlord for his son Praveen Kumar for Shop No. 3 and requirment is to be adjust on the basis of the claim existing on the date of filing of the suit. The court below has rightly dealt with the issue and has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The order does not call for any interference. 17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order is set aside.