MOHINDER PAL Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated May 24, 1988, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. The defendants-petitioners wanted to seek amendment in the written statement to plead that the suit of the plaintiff was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The New India Assurance Company Limited with whom the manager of the plaintiff-Bank had got the truck insured, is a necessary party in this case, etc. etc. .... The said amendment had been disallowed primarily on the ground that the application was belated one as the plaintiff had already closed the evidence. According to the trial Court the application also appears to be mala fide.

(2.) At the time of motion hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he will not lead any evidence whatsoever in case the amendment is allowed.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the amendment sought for was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. In case the application was belated one, the amendment could be allowed on payment of costs. Moreover, the defendant is not to lead any evidence on this account and it has been so stated at the Bar as well. In these circumstances, the petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to amend the written statement on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. It is made clear that the defendants will not be allowed to lead any evidence on this account.