M/s Bawa Nihal Singh Gurmeet Singh and another vs Punjab Tractors Limited and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated May 18, 1987,whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was declined.

The Plaintiff-Respondent filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,42,237 11 against the Defendants on January 28, 1985. The Defendants filed the written statement. They also claimed some set off therein and paid the necessary Court fee as well. After the issues were framed, the Plaintiff closed its evidence, when the application for amendment of the written statement was filed on February 23, 1987. It was stated therein that after going through the records now produced by the opposite party and in the light of the documents produced earlier, the accounts for the year 1980-81 were checked up and it was found that the statement of account filed along with the plaint was wrong, and, therefore, the Defendants wanted to amend the written statement accordingly. It was also averred in paragraph 3 of the application that since the case was based on lengthy accounts, the amendment sought for was essential for the determination of the real question of controversy between the parties In the reply filed by the Plaintiff, it was stated that the documents which had been produced under the orders of the High Court were already in the notice of the Defendants because all the originals thereof were sent along with the tractors to the Defendants. It was further stated that it was wrong that the Plaintiff had intentionally withheld the statement of accounts for the year 1980-81 and from 1.4.1981 to 9.9.1981. Since the Plaintiff is suing on the basis of accounts from September 9, 1981 onwards ; it was not at all requisite for the Plaintiffs to file the statement of accounts from April 1, 1981. The trial Court found that the Defendants had not come with clean hands as it could not be successfully argued on their behalf why they withheld their writing according to which a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- was admitted to be outstanding on September 9, 1981. Moreover, in the original written statement, they had claimed a specific amount from the Plaintiffs. The trial Court also observed that since the amendment sought for was not specific, it could not be allowed. As regards the plea to be added in the written statement that the spare parts manufactured at the instance of the firm were lying with the Defendants and that the Plaintiff was under obligation to lift the same and to adjust the price thereof, the same was not allowed on the ground that this objection was not taken at the very outset of the proceedings.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wrong. The approach of the Courts below while allowing the amendment of the written statements was altogether different from the one allowing the amendments of the plaints. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Daya Ram Vs. Puran Chand and Another, . The learned Counsel further submitted that since the Defendants were no more the agents of the Plaintiff, there was no obligation upon the Plaintiff to take back the spare parts or to give credit for the price thereof. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Defendants did not know the exact amount due from them and. therefore, the production of the ledgers by the Plaintiff was not sufficient. The Plaintiff should be directed to produce the daily roznamcha and the cash book to support their claim.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent submitted that the Defendants admitted a specific amount due from them on September 9, 1981 and therefore, they could not be allowed to go back from the said admission. The account books after the said writing could be produced in the trial Court if so directed. The learned Counsel denied that the agency of the Defendants had been terminated as alleged by them.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the application seeking amendment of the written statement and the reply thereto, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

There is absolutely no explanation why this amendment was being sought at a belated stage when the Plaintiff had already closed its evidence. The question of raising the plea in regard to the taking back of the spare parts or giving credit for their price did not arise because there was no issue in that behalf that the agency of the Defendants had been terminated. As regards the production of the daily roznamcha and the cash books, the question for their production does not arise as such in view of the admission made by the Defendants in the writing, dated September 9, 1981. The whole effort on the part of the Defendants seems to delay the suit proceedings as observed by the trial Court

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Since further proceedings in the suit were stayed at the time of the motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear in the trial court on January 12, 1989. It is further directed that the parties will produce their evidence at their own responsibility as to expedite the hearing of the suit.