ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. KUNJ BEHARI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's application in revision from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Moradabad, allowing an amendment in the written-statement. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money on the basis of advances made to the defendant on the security of properties pledged. The defendants filed a written-statement. Before the issues were framed the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written-statement. The amendment was sought in paragraphs 1 (1 ). 1 (xxi) and 1 (xxii) of the written-statement. They further sought addition of paras 2 (a) 2 (b), 2 (c), 2 (d), 2 (e), 2 (f) and 2 (1 ). The defendant further prayed that after para 1, paras 7 (a), 7 (b), 7 (c) and 7 (d) be added. The plaintiffs objected to the amendment on the ground that by the amendment the defendants were trying to go behind their admissions. In the written-statement certain paras of the plaint were admitted but they were subject to additional pleas. In the additional pleas the defendants had given their stand to the claim laid against them. By means of the amendment they only tried to clarify the stand. In the admission, denial part of the written-statement certain paragraphs which were stated to be admitted were sought to be not admitted. It is on that ground that the plaintiff raised an objection that the defendants were trying logo behind their admission by the amendments sought in the written statement. The Court below allowed the amendment on the ground that the amendments did not affect the stand taken by the defendants to the claim and since the paras which were admitted in the written- statement were subject to the additional pleas where the stand of the defendants was clarified, an endorsement of 'not admitted, by the proposed amendment did not lead to any inconsistency in the case set up in the written statement. It further observed that no new case or change in the case already set up was sought to be introduced by the amend ment. The Court below further observed that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the amendment was allowed. On a perusal of the written statement and the application for amendment it seems to me that the amendments sought were only by way of clarification of the pleadings already set out. A mere non-admission of a statement in law does not amount to specific denial. The amendments appear to be verbal. Since the case set up in the pleadings is not sought to be changed, the Court below rightly allowed the amendment. In M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Mauji Ram (A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 484) it was held that procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in Civil Cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the order so that it may be met to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 1267 it was held that "rules of procedure are intended to be a hand-maid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. " Learned counsel for the applicant was unable to satisfy me that inconsistency was introduced by the amendment sought in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submitted that the amendment was intended only to clarify and elaborate the defence already taken. The Court below allowed the amendment on the ground that it did not alter the nature of defence. Learned counsel for the opposite party further invited my attention to Ram Narain Jaiswal v. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and others 1978 A. W. C. 204 to contend that no revision lies against an order allowing or refusing an amendment in the pleadings. It is not necessary to go into that question in detail. An amendment, to my mind which touches upon rights and obligations of parties may amount to a case decided while formal amend ments which do not affect them may not amount to case decided. In the instant case this question does not call for an adjudication. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The revision, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs. .