VEDANT PAPER CRAFT PVT LTD Vs. INDIAN BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-1-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 21,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pratibha Upasani, - (1.)THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 562/2002 in Original application No. 158/2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for amendment of the written statement with exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/-, which was to be paid to the applicant Bank by way of demand draft on or before 21.8.2002, and on failure to pay the costs, direction was given to issue interim recovery certificate in favour of the applicant Bank, for recovery of the exemplary costs from the defendants.
(2.)I have heard Mr. Thakkar for the appellants and Mr. Nair for the respondent Bank. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding officer was not justified in rejecting the said application made by the appellants for amendment of the written statement.
If one peruses the proposed amendment, which was sought to be incorporated by the appellants in their written statement, it will be revealed that the appellants only sought to explain certain facts which had already been incorporated by them in their written statement. This proposed amendment was by way of explanation only and no new case was sought to be made out.

(3.)IT is a settled legal position that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit even if application for amendment is made belatedly. IT is also settled principle of law that amendment which is in the nature of explanation of original contention, can be allowed. Generally speaking, Courts are liberal in granting amendment applications in all cases, except in certain cases where entirely new case is sought to be made out or where it is sought with mala fide intention and the entire battle-field is sought to be changed. Such is not the case here. Hence, the application ought to have been allowed because no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Bank, by allowing such amendment application. Hence, following order is passed.
ORDER

Misc. Appeal No. 379 of 2002 is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000 to be paid to the respondent Bank. Condition precedent.

The impugned order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 562/2002 in Original Application No. 158/2001 is hereby set aside.

Amendment to be carried out within three weeks and the amended copy be served upon the other side within two weeks thereafter.

Misc. Appeal No. 379/2002 is disposed of in the above stated terms.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.