B SUBRAMANYAM Vs. KUSHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the plaintiffs learned Advocate on merits. The grievance projected in this Civil Revision Petition is that an amendment to the written statement which was sought by the petitioner who is the original defendant before the Trial Court in a money recovery suit was disallowed by the Trial Court. The petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that two additional points were sought to be canvassed, the first being that the plaintiff has not produced the Money Lenders Li cence nor satisfied the Court that he was a Money Lender on the date of the loan and on the date when the loan was extended by him and on the date of filing of the suit. The second point taken up was that assuming that the plaintiff is a money lender, that he is required to comply with the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and if the requisite returns have not been filed by him that under Section 24, he would be disqualified from claiming interest and costs. The submission is that the defendant's earlier Lawyer had not taken up these two points and that therefore, an application was made for amending the written statement. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Trial judge has disallowed the application on two grounds, the first being that the Money Lenders licence has in fact been produced vide Exhibits p. 8 and P. 9 and secondly that the suit is six years old, that the evidence is over, that it has reached the arguments stage and that the belated application has been made only in order to dilate the proceedings.

(2.) BEFORE me, the principal submission is that the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced if the amendments are not allowed. Learned Advocate also submitted that there is very little evidence that the plaintiff would have to lead in order to meet the two contentions and that consequently, no injustice would be done if the amendment is allowed, if the evidence is reopened and the suit is decided once and for all. He has sought to place reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in Mangala bai and Others v Sayyad Fakir and Others. In that case, a learned single Judge of this Court did take the view that amendment of pleadings should normally be allowed by the Court unless it is demonstrated that the party is acting mala fide and furthermore that it should be without causing injustice to the other side.

(3.) THERE is a doctrine of finality which attaches itself to different stages of legal proceedings and the principle also applies to pleadings. It is true that the Courts do make certain exceptions provided there is very valid ground but more importantly provided that the application is made in good time and it does not result in manifest injustice. In the present instance, one needs to take note of the fact that the suit has come up to the stage of arguments, that it is six years old and the question is as to whether at this late stage an amendment of the written statement should be permitted and the evidence should be reopened. To my mind, such a procedure cannot be permitted for the reason that among other things, it would result in manifest injustice to the opposite party. The contention is that the defendant has not repaid the loan and that this is the reason why the plaintiff had to approach the Court for recovery and it is absolutely essential that the time factor should also be taken into consideration by the legal system. Even after the pleadings are complete and the evidence has started in exceptional cases, a Court may allow an amendment but if that stage is over and the evidence has been closed, by permitting reopening of the evidence, to my mind, it would not only be injustice to the opposite party it would be manifestly unfair to the system itself because it is due to such situations that litigation gets dilated and goes on interminably. It is in this background, that the order of the trial Court will have to be upheld and no interference is warranted. I however make it clear that the petitioner will not be precluded from raising these issues in the course of his arguments because they are essentially points of law.