NARAYANAN UNNI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Bank of Baroda has filed this petition in IA-2 for amendment of plaint as set out in the petition for amendment

(2.) The petitioner-respondent Bank contends that the 3rd defendant in the suit is the guarantor but no relief was sought for in the plaint as against the 3rd defendant and it is only typographical omission. To seek relief against defendants 3 to 6 it has been omitted in the prayer paragraph of the plaint of the suit by oversight and the plaint has to be amended as set out above.

(3.) ON the other hand the Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, amendment of pleading can be allowed before pronouncement of judgment, now the amendment petition has been filed in the appellate stage and the amendment cannot be allowed. She relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in B.N. Das and Ors. v. Bijaya Ketan Mohanty, AIR 1982 Orissa 145, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 reveal that the expressions "at any stage of the proceedings" and "at any stage of the suit" should cover the period between conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of judgment.