M.P.Singh - (1.) THIS is defendant's revision arising out of an order dated 8th July 1988 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.
(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed suit no. 102 of 1985 Bark of Baroda v. M/s Industrial Rubber and Latex Manufacturers and another for recovery of Rs.57908.00 with costs and pendentelite interest at 15% per annum and also for the appointment of receiver with all the power conferable uncer Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. The suit was filed inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff is a corresponding New Bank and is entered as such in the First Schedule of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act no. 5 of 1970 and is a body corporate entitled to sue under section 3 sub-section (4) of the said Act. On 25-2-82, at the request of defendant no. 2 the plaintiff opened a mutual Current and open Cash Credit Account in the name of defendant no. 1 in their books in Dehradun Branch. The cash credit limit was Rs. 35,000/-. It was agreed that the interest at 5% over Reserve Bank of India rate with quarterly rests would be paid by the defendants on the over drawn amounts. A security for the above cash credit account was also furnished by the defendants. The transaction between the parties on the aforesaid cash credit account commenced form 27-2-82 and continued upto 28-1-1983 on which date a sum of Rs. 57,908.00 as balance remained due from, and payable by the defendants. Inspite of repeated demands and the registered notice dated 21-4-1984 through counsel, the money has not been paid, thus the suit was filed.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants, but in para 17 of the written statement, the defendants have said that they had always been willing and are still willing to repay the loan accepted, provided the Bank accepts the repayment in easy instalments. Only the rate of interest has been disputed in para 18. THEreafter, an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 adding about 20 paragraphs. Apart from other points, the defendants have also resiled from the admission made in the written statement. THE amendment application was filed seeking the following main amendments : (i) THE plaintiff is not a corresponding New Bank and is not entitled to sue. Shri B. S. Saini is not entitled to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff as he is neither the Manager, nor recognised agent of the plaintiff. He is not even the attorney of the plaintiff. (ii) It is wrong to allege that cash credit limit was Rs. 35,000/-. (iii) It is wrong to allege that the defendants acknowledged the liability of Rs. 34,507.16 on 8-11-1982. It is also wrong to allege that the defendants executed a pronote, a letter of hypothecation on 8-11-1982 in favour of the plaintiff as continuing security. It is also wrong to allege that the defendants agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 5 per cent over the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 15 per cent per annum with quarterly rests. (iv) It is wrong to allege that a sum of Rs. 40,444.61 was due to the plaintiff form the defendants on 28-1-1983. (v) THE accounts filed by the plaintiff are fictitious and wrong. THEy are inadmissible in evidence. (vi) THE documents referred in the plaint are forged and fictitious. THEy are inadmissible in evidence. THE plaintiff has misused the blank forms on which the signature of the defendant no. 2 were obtained. Apart from the above mentioned main points, sought to be amended, the defendants has taken large number of other points to be added.;