S L YADAV Vs. MAHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order 11.3.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.S.Panwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None was present for the respondent even on the last date of hearing. I have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner herein (plaintiff in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit under order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,09,000/- against the defendant. It is pleaded that plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the defendant. In return for the said loan the defendant issued two account payee cheques, and also assured to begin payment of interest @ 24 % per annum because that was the promise given by the defendant at the time of taking the loan. The plaintiff presented one cheque which was dishonoured. Decree for the sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- and interest @ 24 per cent per annum was claimed. The defendant contested the matter, The plaintiff thereafter moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stating that inadvertently he could not mention in the plaint the amount of previous interest and wanted to add a sum of Rs. 73,030/- as interest @ 24% per annum and accordingly sought amendments of paras 13 and 14 of the plaintiff. Para 13 is for revaluation and payment of Court fee and para 14 is the prayer clause. The application was opposed by the learned Counsel for the defendant. On the date of arguments learned Counsel for the plaintiff was not present. Learned Counsel for the defendant opposed on the ground that the plaintiff deemed to have relinquished the said claim at the time of filing of the suit and there was bar of Order II Rule 2, CPC. The application was, therefore, dismissed.