Vinod Kumar vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—Vide this order 15 Civil Revisions are being disposed of as the point involved therein is common. These are Civil Revisions No. 1987 of 1988 and No. 2146 to 2159 of 1988. Facts are taken from the file of Civil Revision No. 1987 of 1988.

Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter called the Bank) filed a suit of recovery of Rs. 15,863.18 P against Defendant No. 1 to whom a loan was advanced and Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood guarantors. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 10,000/- was the principal. Subsequently an applidasion under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the Plaintiff-bank in order to implead two persons are Defendants No. 4 and 6 i.e. partners of M/s Dosanjh Fertiliser Company. As per the allegations made in the application, on the request of Defendant No 1 to whom the loan was advanced initially, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to M/s Dosanjh Fertiliser Company for supplying fertilisers to Defendant No. 1 and in case the fertilisers was not supplied, the Plaintiff could recover the amount from those Defendants. This application was contested. The Sub Judge 1st Class, Phillaur, vide order dated June 7, 1988 allowing the application for amendment of the plaint subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs. Hence the Defendant has come up in revision petition challenging the aforesaid order.

In the other cases applications for amendment of the plaints were declined and the Plaintiff Oriental bank has challenged such orders in the other revision petitions, other facts are being similar except difference in the amounts claimed and the parties.

In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, it was held that on technical grounds applications for amendment of the pleadings could not be declined. Rules of procedure arc intended to be a handmade to the administration of Justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. It was held that at any stage of the suit, amendment of the plaint could be ordered. In the present case applications for amendment were made at the stage when Plaintiff was yet to lead evidence. It was initial stage of the suit when amendment of the plaint sought for. When cause of action remains the same, the nature of the suit is not changed. In such circumstances also the plaint should be ordered to be amended. It is only when additional pleas are taken which would demolish the defence that amendment of the plaint should be declined as held in Sarbjeet Singh v. Kartar Singh 1987 R L R 312.

The only ground on which the amendment of the plaint has been declined is that at the time of filing of the application suit for recovery of the amount against the persons to be added as Defendants had become barred by time. At this stage when there being no plea from the persons to be added as Defendants, it cannot be said prima facie that the suit would be barred by time. The case has to be looked into from different angles. Firstly, as the case of the Plaintiff-bank is that the amount was transferred to M/s Dosanjh Fertilisar Company at the instance of Defendant No. 1 and the Company was to supply fertiliser to Defendant No. 1. If it is so proved, the suit against Defendant No. 1 or the guarantors could be decreed. The necessity for amendment of the plaint arose because of the plea taken by Defendant No. 1 that he had not authorised the bank to transfer any money to the aforesaid firm. Rather, case of Defendant No. is that in never took any loan from the bank. If it is found that money was transferred to the aforesaid firm of its own by the bank without any instructions from Defendant No. 1 only then the question would arise as to when period of limitation against the aforesaid firm would stand for filing the suit and that would depend on evidence as to when the amount was paid to the Fertiliser Company and when the Fertiliser was to be delivered by the said firm to Defendant No. 1. At this stage such a question cannot be determined simply on the allegations of the Plaintiff or the present Defendants. The trial Court in the present case rightly left this question open whereas in the other cases where application was declined, it was tentatively held that the suit against the aforesaid firm would be barred by time from the date of the loan having been taken by Defendant No. 1.

A copy of the judgment in one such like suit has been produced to show that against the Fertiliser Company the suit was dismissed. In my view, at this stage, no notice can be taken of such a judgment. May be, in one of such like cases the bank failed to produce evidence against the firm but it cannot be said that in the present cases also the Plaintiff-bank would be failing to produce any evidence.

For the reasons recorded above, Civil Revision No. 1987 of 1988 is dismissed whereas other Civil Revisions are allowed. The impugned orders passed therein are set aside and the applications for amendment of the plaints are allowed on payment of Rs. 50/- as costs in each case which would be paid on the date to be fixed by the trial Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.