Allowed

Sailendra Danta v. State Bank of India

Orissa HC3 Dec 2016CMP/533/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the single judge quashed the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge which rejected the defendants' application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, allowing the amendment as it was formal in nature and would not alter the character of the suit.

What did the court decide?

The rejection of the application for amendment of the written statement was quashed and the application was allowed subject to payment of costs to the plaintiff.

This petition challenges the order dated 11.3.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn .), Boudh in C.S. No.7 of 2011. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the applicatio n of the defendants for amendment of the written statement.

Opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of debt along wit h other ancillary reliefs impleading the petitioner as well as opposite party nos.2 and 3 as d efendants. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. .

After closure of evidence, the defendants filed an application for amendment t o incorporate the fact that they have never approached the plaintiff-Bank for loan. Defendant no.1 was the applicant. His name was sponsored by Krushi Sahayak Kendra, Boudh. Defendant no.3 was not the guarantor of the loan. They have not executed any document. The aforesaid applica tion was filed since they were in possession of the documents. In course of hearing, the docum ents had been exhibited by the plaintiff. They ascertain the fact from those documents. The pl aintiff has filed counter to the same. Learned trial court rejected the application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants filed an applic ation for production of certain documents. The same was rejected. In course of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application to exhibit certain documents. From those documents, t he defendant no.2 came to know that he never approached the plaintiff-Bank for establishment o f the unit. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to am end the written statement. He submits that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will no way change the nature and character of the suit. By order dated 11.3.2015, learne d trial court rejected the same.

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 submits that hearing from b oth sides is closed. The matter is posted for argument. To protract the litigation, the applic ation for amendment of written statement has been filed. On a bare perusal of the application for amendment, it is evident that the sam e is formal in nature and will no way change the nature and character of the suit. In view of the same, learned trial court is not correct in rejecting the appli cation for amendment. Accordingly, the order dated 11.3.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Boudh in C.S. No.7 of 2011 is quashed. The application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to the learned counsel for the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today, failing which this order shall stand auto matically recalled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants will not adduce any evidence. In view of the above, learned trial court shall hear the argument and pronounce the judgment within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petition is allowed.

Sailendra Danta v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailendra Danta v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parameswari Devi Vs Ashok Kumar Jaiswal

M.Shiva Rao Vs State

Birendra Nath Das Vs State

Ratikanta Mallik Vs Santosh Kumar Mohapatra

Kanak Manjari Rath Vs Basudev Dash

Rohita Nayak Vs Dhruba Charan Nayak