SHRISHAILAPPA Vs. C P MALASHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. B. Thammiah, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of his plaint for incorporation of plea of independent transaction of payment of money in addition to what he had already pleaded preferring his claim on the basis of a promissory note. It appears that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the import of the judgment wherein it was specifically held that there cannot be any inflexible Rule as to whether in suits on insufficiently stamped promissory notes, plaintiffs should, or should not, be permitted to amend the plaint so as to base the suit on the original cause of action. The consideration of such plea depended entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- on basis of a demand promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant. During the course of evidence when the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to mark the promissory note, the same was object to by the defendant on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. The Court did not permit the promissory note to be exhibited vide its order dated 15-6-1992. Apparently to overcome the objections raised by the other side, the petitioner herein filed I. A. VI under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code praying for amend of plaint, by adding two sentences at para 2. He prayed that after the words, "the plaintiff therefore paid Rs. 15,000/- to defendant-1 as a hand-loan on 12-1-1985 at Gadag", the following words be permitted to be written "to evidence the said payment". Similarly at the end of para-2 the plaintiff wanted to add the words "on the original consideration". The prayer was resisted mainly on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble supreme Court of India.

(3.) IN A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v Damodar Valley Corporation, it was held: