Allowed

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. v. N.G. Polymers and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024OMP/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to amend a written statement in a civil suit. The amendment sought to incorporate facts of a post-filing settlement and payment made by defendants, which the court held required amendment despite opposing claims.

What did the court decide?

The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed; the amended written statement is to be taken on record.

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. Vs N.G. Polymers… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. Vs. N.G. Polymers and another

¶2

Civil Suit No. 87 of 2021 Reserved on: 9.8.2024

¶3

4.09.2024 Present:

¶4

Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for the nonapplicant/plaintiff.

¶5

Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the applicants/defendants.

¶6

OMP No. 337 of 2024

¶7

The applicants/defendants have filed the present application for amendment of the written statement in view of the subsequent developments. It has been asserted that the nonapplicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of ₹73,03,888/- as principal amount and ₹50.00 lacs as interest. Applicants/defendants have made payment of ₹17,32,107/- as principal amount and ₹1,92,893/- as interest by three cheques. The accounts were settled between the parties and the settlement amount was paid to the nonapplicant/plaintiff. This amount is required to be set off from the amount claimed by the plaintiff and the suit has to be dismissed as per the

¶8

settlement between the parties. Hence, the application seeking the amendment.

¶9

The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that the applicants/defendants had issued cheques in the discharge of their part liability. The cheques were dishonoured and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff. The remaining amount is yet to be paid. It was specifically denied that accounts were settled and it was agreed that an amount of ₹17,32,107/- together with interest of ₹1,92,893/- would be paid. The amount paid by the applicants/defendants is to be first adjusted towards the interest and thereafter towards the principal. The amount paid by the applicants/defendants do not discharge the interest component. The dispute was settled regarding the pendency of three criminal complaints. The settlement had taken place on 27.3.2023 and the application for amendment was

¶10

filed after one year. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶11

I have heard Mr. Vivek Negi, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants and Mr. K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the non-applicant/ plaintiff.

¶12

Mr. Vivek Negi, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants submitted that the nonapplicants/defendants paid the amount during the pendency of the suit which is to be adjusted from the amount claimed by the non-applicant/plaintiff. The parties had settled the matter and the applicants/defendants paid the amount towards full and final settlement of the claim made by the non-applicant/plaintiff. Since the payment was made during the pendency of the suit, therefore, this fact could not be asserted in the written statement filed by the applicants/defendants. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the applicants/defendants be permitted to amend the written statement to incorporate the factum of the

¶13

payment and the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶14

Mr. K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that the amount was paid towards the interest component. No settlement had taken place between the parties regarding the amount due to the applicants/defendants. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶15

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶16

The non-applicant/plaintiff has not disputed the payment of money by the applicants/defendants in the reply filed by it. The only dispute is whether the payment was made regarding the settlement executed between the parties or towards the interest component of the amount due to the non-applicant/plaintiff. The non-applicant/plaintiff stated in the reply that settlement was effected on 27.3.2023 but it was regarding the cheques issued by the

¶17

applicants/defendants. The written statement was filed on 25.3.2022 which means that the settlement had taken place after filing of the written statement. Therefore, the applicants/defendants could not have incorporated the settlement in the written statement filed by them and they have sufÏcient cause for amending the plaint.

¶18

The plea of the non-applicant/plaintiff that the applicants/defendants had taken a false plea regarding the settlement is not to be adjudicated while deciding an application for amendment. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 320 that while considering the amendment application, the Court is not to see the correctness or falsity of the proposed amendment. It was observed:

¶19

19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged

¶20

at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.

¶21

Thus, the application cannot be dismissed because the proposed amendment is false.

¶22

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the applicants/defendants are permitted to amend the written statement by incorporating the factum of payment and the settlement in the written statement.

¶23

11. Application stands disposed of.

¶24

Civil Suit No. 87 of 2021

¶25

The amended written statement be taken on record and the replication, if any to the amended written statement be filed within three weeks and the matter be listed for admission/denial of the documents thereafter.

¶26

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶27

4^th September, 2024 (Chander)

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. v. N.G. Polymers and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R. Agrotech Ltd. v. N.G. Polymers and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Dhani Ram and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Anuradha Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Kush Kumar Vs Reenu Sharma

Geeta Devi Vs Uco Bank

Rajeshwar Singh @ Raju Vs State of Hp and Anr.