- (1.) This is a revisional application against the orders dated 25-9-1989 and 12-21990 filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 456, 88 passed by the 2nd Bench, Small Cause Courts at Calcutta.
(2.) 'The brief facts set-out in the revisional application are as follows:-- The petitioner which is a firm carrying on business of various types of iron materials had supplied to the opposite party-defendants since 1980-81 of M.S. Bolts, Nuts, Washers of various sizes and other items as specified in the Bill. It is, inter alia, stated that as per the agreement the defendant had agreed and paid 90% of the value of the goods leaving onlyl0% to be payable at time of final checking and re-submission of further bills by the plaintiff. There was an outstanding dues of Rs. 4,509 payable by the defendant-opposite party of the said balance 10% of the bill amount. The plaintiff had submitted several representations and reminders but all such attempts appeared to be abortive. The petitioner had also sent a notice under Section 120 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Since the defendant/ opposite party did not clear the amounts, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 9,990/- as per the schedule mentioned in the plant. In response to the suit summons the opposite party appeared in the court and filed the written statement denying all the allegations that have been made. The petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, has submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 7, Rule 19 of the small Cause Courts Act praying for amendment of the plaint, incorporating one letter of the defendant-opposite party, admitting the claim of the petitioner and asking him to wait for some time more for his dues. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it was although stated that in pursuance of the notice under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the defendant further asked for documents and the same were submitted but the details of the said letter nor the date could be specified in the said para.
(3.) The opposite party had vehemently objected to the said application for leave to amend the plaint, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff's claim having been already barred by limitation the amendment application neither could be entertained or allowed. The learned trial Judge after having accepted the contention of the defendant-opposite party was, however, inclined not to grant leave for amending the pleadings and thus, accordingly rejected the amendment application.;