High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Modern Diagnostic Centre & Another v. Punjab National Bank - WRIT - C No. 29299 of 2007  RD-AH 11822 (12 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29299 of 2007.
M/s. Modern Diagnostic Center Vs. Punjab National Bank.
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ganga Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
A suit for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- was filed by the petitioner against the respondent bank. The plaint case is that the plaintiff no.1 is a registered partnership firm, which had a current account in the bank and in the said account there was a credit balance of Rs. 2,753/- and the plaintiff no.2 who is alleged to be a partner had issued a cheque, which was dis-honoured although there was balance in the account. It was alleged that the action of the defendant was deliberate and to damage the reputation of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was filed by the petitioners, which is pending. In the said appeal an application for amendment was filed by the petitioner seeking to add paragraph 4-A in the plaint in which it is stated that there was sufficient balance of Rs. 2,743/- in the account on 16.5.1986 and the cheque was only for Rs. 2,281/- as such the defendant bank was bound to honour the cheque and because defendant deliberately dis-honoured the cheque as such the defendant has committed breach of contract and is liable to pay damages. The appellate court found that the appellant has not explained why the amendment in the plaint could not be moved before the commencement of the trial and that the nature of the case would be changed by the proposed amendment. In my opinion the view taken by the appellate court that the nature of the suit would be changed if the amendment is allowed is not correct. The amendment has been sought only to clarify the pleadings specifying that the act of the defendant amounts to breach of contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner will not lead any evidence in support of the amendment. The delay would therefore not cause any prejudice to the defendant.
No doubt under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. ordinarily no amendment should be allowed after the issues have been framed and the trial has commenced but in this case the counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner will not lead any evidence and will rely upon the existing material alone. An amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. The view taken by the appellate court that the nature of the case would be changed by the proposed amendment does not appear to be correct. The amendment sought therefore ought to have been allowed. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order of the appellate court dated 2.3.2007 is set aside and the amendment seeking to add paragraph 4-A in the plaint is allowed. The plaintiff however shall not be permitted to lead any evidence in support of the amended plea.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.