Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE defendants -petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the reply to the suit. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent No. 2, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,19,818/ - against the petitioners before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan. At the time of final arguments of the suit, the petitioners have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for wanting to amend their reply to the suit. However, by order dated 9.1.2013, the learned Judge has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.
(2.) MR . Ravindra Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that since the amendments were essential for establishing the case of the petitioners, the said amendment should have been allowed by the learned Judge. Moreover, the said amendment was crucial in order to ensure justice to the petitioners. Therefore, by rejecting the said application, the learned Judge has caused an injustice to the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioners wanted to incorporate Condition Nos. 4 and 14 contained in the agreement entered between the Bank and the petitioners. According to these conditions, it was the responsibility of the Bank to get the goods insured with an insurance company. Moreover, in case any damage were caused to the goods, it was the duty of the Bank to recover the compensation from the insurance company.;