Dismissed

Rajinder Singh v. State Bank of Patiala

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CR/2797/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought revision against the dismissal of his application to amend the written statement in a bank suit for recovery. The court held the amendment could confuse the issue as key pleas were already taken and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed; revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Rajinder Singh Vs State Bank of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2797 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2797 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.5.2012

Rajinder Singh

.. Petitioner

State Bank of Patiala

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition filed by the defendant is to the order dated 17.4.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed by him, was dismissed.

¶13

The proceedings arise out of a suit for recovery filed by the respondent-bank on 9.9.2006 against the petitioner-defendant. The case set up by the petitioner-defendant is that amendment sought for in the written statement is explanatory in nature. Though it was informed to the counsel earlier but the same was not incorporated. The defence sought to be raised in the amended written statement will not change the nature of the suit. The law for amendment of the written statement is quite liberal.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The application for amendment of the written statement was filed when the respondent-plaintiff had already concluded its evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. The plea was sought to be taken that when a new counsel was engaged, he advised to amend the written statement. The learned court below has noticed

¶15

Civil Revision No. 2797 of 2012 [2]

¶16

that the pleas, which are sought to be added, have already been taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement. A perusal of the amendment sought to be made shows that there is some effort to confuse the entire issue. The primary thing in a suit filed by a financial institution is as to whether the loan was sanctioned and the amount was withdrawn by the loanee.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶19

8.5.2012 mk

Rajinder Singh v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh v. State Bank of Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bansal Wool Traders & Anr. Vs Bharat Kumar Soni & Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Aruna Rani

Satpal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Kuldeep Singh Vs Rajinder Singh

Gurdev Kaur and Ors. Vs U T Chandigarh

Ut, Chd. Vs Mahipal Singh and Ors.