S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents No. 3 and 4. Other respondents to the writ pension are formal parties and therefore, I propose to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. The plaintiff respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a suit No. 496 of 1987 (H.I. Obherai and another v. M/s. Lakshmi Finance and General Trading Co., 7 Cross Road Dehradun and others) for a decree being passed in their favour for Rs. 73,123.10 as against the defendant with interest @ 15% per annum from 1.8.1987 until date of payment. The suit was filed with the allegation that the defendant No. 1 namely the petitioner happened to be partnership concerned dealing finance. The defendants No. 2 to 10 were stated to the partners of the defendant No. 1 which invites deposits and invests the same with a view to earn profits; the defendants deposited Rs. 5,000 on 2.11.1974 and thereafter some more deposits were made and it was agreed that the deposits so made would carry interest @ 15% per annum, The defendants were periodically sending statements of account of deposit and interest accrued thereon but ultimately when the plaintiffs wanted refund of the money deposited by them, the defendants refused and hence the suit.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner who have been arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They filed a joint written statement denying the plaintiffs' allegation but admitted that the first deposit of Rs. 5,000 was made on 22.7.1993. It was denied that there was any agreement for payment of interest @ 15% per annum. The plea of the suit being barred of time was also taken. It was also stated in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable being barred of arbitration clause in the agreement. After the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed, the defendant -petitioners filed an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which they wanted to add paragraph 28 -A which reads as under: That the plaintiffs are the money lenders. The suit is not maintainable under the provisions of U.P. Regulations of Money Lending Act, 1976 as the plaintiffs have not got themselves registered as money lenders. The trial court by its order dated 7.3.1995 rejected the amendment prayed for. The trial court was of the view that the plaintiffs were not money lenders and the application was filed as delaying tactics. The petitioners went up in revision which came to be rejected by the Additional District Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun by the order dated 7.4.1997 mainly on the ground that the application for amendment was filed at belated stage. The revisional court placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gauri Shankar v. M/s. Hindustan Trust (Pvt.) Ltd. and others : AIR 1972 SC 2091.
(3.) THE submission made by Shri Rajesh Tandon is that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the amendment application after considering the issue. as to whether the plaintiffs were money lenders on its merit in that the question whether or not the plaintiffs were money lenders could be decided only on evidence and not while disposing of the amendment application. The revisional court has not approved the said view of the trial court but it has rejected the amendment application mainly on the ground that it was filed at belated stage. Shri Tarun Agarwal vehemently urged that the delay and laches coupled with conduct of defendants were valid grounds for rejecting the amendment application. Respondents further submitted that the plaintiffs' evidence was also closed and therefore court below was justified in rejecting the amendment application which was filed at a belated stage. It is also submitted by Shri Tarun -Agarwal that the plea sought to be taken by way of amendment is totally contrary to the original plea taken in the written statement.;