MAROTI Vs. U C O BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. The applicant/original defendant by this revision has challenged the order dated 2.3.1991 passed by the Small Cause Court, Nagpur rejecting his amendment application seeking permission to amend the written statement The plaintiff bank has filed a suit for the recovery of the loan amount from the defendant and in the written statement filed by the defendant initially the defendant had admitted the suit claim and further had contended that the plaintiff bank has charged interest exhorbitantly and the same was liable to be reduced. He had also prayed for grant of instalments for making the payments.

(2.) Subsequently the defendant filed an application seeking permission to amend his written statement raising a contention that the suit as filed was barred by limitation. While so contending the defendant wanted to incorporate in the written statement his submission that the plaintiff bank played a fraud upon the defendant by obtaining his signatures on blank forms and then put back dates upon those forms. It is the say of the defendant that this was discovered by him after filing of the written statement on his inspecting the documents filed by the plaintiff bank. The trial Court had rejected the defendant's application on the ground that the defendant initially in his written statement had admitted the suit claim and had prayed for instalments and now he cannot go behind the said averment. The trial Court also observed that the defendant did not disclose the details of the practice of fraud by the bank upon him and it is in this view of the matter the trial court found that the defendant was not entitled to go behind his averments made in the written statement and, therefore, rejected the amendment application. Mr. Karekar appearing for the non-applicant bank tried to support the order of the trial Court. In my view by introducing the amendment in the written statement the defendant what really wanted to urge was that the suit as filed by the non-applicant bank was barred by limitation. This averment cannot be said to be inconsistent with the admission of the suit claim in the written statement made by the defendant. Whether the details of the fraud have been given or not cannot be material for considering whether the amendment sought by the defendant was liable to be allowed or not. The plea of limitation can be raised though the suit claim is admitted initially in the written statement. In the circumstances the order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the defendant is permitted to amend his written statement as prayed by him in his application. The instant revision thus stands allowed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.