ORDER
1. This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dt. 14-10-1987, whereby the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was rejected. The plaintiff-petitioner HolaRam along with one Smt. Ram Piari filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption claiming themselves to be the tenants on the suit land in equal shares. During the pendency of that suit Smt. Ram Piari plaintiff died. The application filed by her legal representatives to be brought on the record was dismissed by the trial Court by an, order dt. 22-12-1984. Revision petition against the said order was also dismssed by this Court reported as Karan Chand v. Kewal Krishan, 1985 Pun LJ 581.
2. After having failed, the plaintiff Hola Ram then moved an application for amendment of the plaint claiming therein that he is entitled to the total land being tenant thereon after the death of Smt. Ram Piari. That application was opposed by the defendants and the trial Court dismissed the same with the observations that the proposed amendment was not necessary or proper in order to determine the real controversy in the suit. The trial Court also found that under the circumstances when it was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the application for implead-ing the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Smt. Ram Piari had already been dismissed and that order has achieved finality, the present application was not maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was a tenant on the suit land in equal shares with Smt. Ram Piari, he would be admitted to be a tenant on every parcel of the land and that being so he is entitled to a decree of the total land after the death of Smt. Ram Piari. In support of this contention, he referred to Partap Singh v. Kala Ram, 1969 Cur LJ 829.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, in the plaint originally filed the plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants on the suit land in equal shares, i.e. one half each. If once the shares are determined then on the death of one tenant the other tenant would not claim to be the tenant on the whole land. As such, the judgment relied upon has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as therein the shares of the tenants were not determined. In the circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed withcosts.
5. Since further proceedings were stayed at the time of motion hearing, parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10-8-1989.
6. In order to expedite the hearing of the case, the parties shall produce evidence at their own responsibility and for that purpose one opportunity will be given to each party.
7. Petition dismissed.