KAMAL REGMI SHARMA Vs. NEPAL BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been preferred against the two judgments and orders dated 28-4-1986 and 26-5-1986 passed by the Ilnd Civil Judge, Gorakhpur in O. S. No. 159 of 1985 titled as Nepal Bank v. Union Bank of India and others. By the order dated 28-4-1986 the trial court allowed the application filed by defendant no. 3 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the written statement. By the order dated 26-5-1986 the trial court had dismissed the application filed by the defendant nos. 4 to 6 for the recall of the order dated 28-4-1986. THIS revision has thus been preferred by defendant nos. 4 to 6 against the above two judgments and orders dated 28-4-1986 and 26-5-1986.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the instant revision are that plaintiff-opposite-party no. 1 filed a suit for a decree of Rs. 600000/- along with pendente lite and future interest besides the costs of the suit against Union Bank of India (defendant no. 1) M/s. Apsra Saree Centre, Golghar, Gorakhpur (defendant no. 2), M/s. Om Prakash Pramod Kumar, Golghar, Gorakhpur, (defendant no. 3), Kamal Regni (Sharma) (defendant no. 4), Shyam Kumar alias Mohan Kumar (defendant no. 5) and Gopal Bahadur K. C. (defendant no. 6). In the alternative a decree of a mandatory injunction was sought by the plaintiff (Nepal Bank) against defendant no. 1 with a direction to return to the Central Bank of India, Gorakhpur the amounts mentioned in the cheques for being credited into the current account of the plaintiff maintained by the Central Bank of India. This suit was filed on the ground that three cheques were stolen from the Butwal office of the plaintiff bank and after having been forged were presented to the defendant no. 1 Union Bank of India for collection of the amount mentioned in the cheques from the Central Bank of India. The cheques were drawn in favour of M/s. Apsra Saree Centre, Golghar, and M/s. Om Prakash Pramod Kumar, Golghar, Gorakhpur. On an inquiry by defendant nos. 2 and 3 they were informed that the cheques were forged and consequently a criminal complaint was filed by one Pramod Kumar alleging that defendant nos. 4 and 5 have handed over four cheques to them. Defendant nos. 4 to 6 were consequently arrested. It was set forth in the plaint that defendant nos. 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the said amount of cheques and the defendant no. 1 is now refusing to return the amount to the Central Bank of India inspite of the service of notice. On such refusal by defendant nos. 1 to 3 to return the amount, the suit was filed. A written statement on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3 was filed. One Dalip Kumar Tahul signed the written statement on behalf of Apsra Saree Centre (defendant no. 2) while one Subodh Kumar signed the written statement on behalf of M/s. Om Prakash Pramod Kumar (defendant no. 3). The written statement was verified by Subodh Kumar. Later on an application was filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 to accept the enclosed written statement filed separately on behalf of defendant no. 2. By another application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC certain amendments were claimed in the written statement by defendant no. 3 filed by them (M/s. Om Prakash Pramod Kumar defendant no. 3). Another application for correction of certain facts in the proposed amended written statement was also made by defendant no. 3.

(3.) IN the application filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 for the amendment of the written statement this para was sought to be deleted and another para in its place was sought to be substituted. This para is also reproduced below :-