State Bank of Patiala vs M/s Ram Chandra Mangal Chand, Bhiwani

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of C.R. Nos. 1266, 1267 and 1268 of 1982 as the question involved is common in all these cases.

The plaintiff-petitioner-State Bank of Patiala has filed three suits against the defendant-petitioners for the recovery of certain amounts by sale of pledged goods, etc. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed amendment of the written statement whereby the defendants have been allowed to take additional plea that the defendant had pledged certain goods with the plaintiff and thus there is a relationship of pledger and pledgee between the parties and so, the suit for recovery was not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the bank-plaintiff contended that the application was very much belated and there was no explanation for not taking this plea earlier. According to the learned counsel, the amendment of the written statement could not be allowed at that stage. It was also contended that the plea sought to be taken has no merit.

It has been stated at the Bar on behalf of the defendant-respondents that the defendants will not lead any evidence on the plea sought to be taken by way of amendment in the written statement as according to them it is only a question of law to be argued as such. In this view of the matter I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, all the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.