VANDANA S P SALGAONKAR Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (defendant No. 2 in the suit and sole proprietor of defendant No. 1) has sought amendment to the written statement which was rejected by Civil Judge S. D. , Vasco-da-Gama and it is this order which is challenged in this revision.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri A. P. Lawande for the petitioner, after placing before me the facts giving rise to the amendment application, submitted before me that the amendment is neither mala fide nor will it cause prejudice to the opposite partly and that the lower Court erred in rejecting the amendment application. He placed reliance on (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon) A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 1267, (Anitha Swain v. Nilakantha Biswal) A. I. R. 1969 Orissa, 267, (Babarao s/o Rajaram Deshmukh v. Sonba s/o Janu Bhai) A. I. R. 1976 Bombay, 332, (M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram) A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 484, (Prasant Chandra Sen v. United Commercial Bank and another) A. I. R. 1982 Calcutta, 555 and (Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera) A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 817 and submitted that the revision be allowed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the revision is being opposed by Advocates for the respondents. Learned Advocate Shri M. M. Rao for respondent No. 1 has contended that the lower Court has not rejected the amendment application on the ground of delay and as such the rulings of the Bombay High Court and Orissa High Court have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. He placed before me the material dates and submitted that the main defence in the original written statement was limitation; that there was no denial that the petitioner was sole proprietor of defendant No. 1; that there was no denial of execution of documents relating to loan as well as acknowledgment of the loan and what is now sought to be brought about by the amendment is to withdraw the admissions which are so vital for the decision of the case and in case the amendments are allowed, the same will cause serious prejudice to the respondents. He also submitted that the liability in respect of the loan in question had also been listed in the insolvency petition filed by the petitioner; that the amendment sought is totally mala fide and relying upon the decision in (M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co.) A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 680, it was submitted that the revision is liable to be dismissed. Advocate Shri G. V. Tamba for the guarantor has adopted the arguments advanced by Advocate Shri M. M. Rao and his contention is that the amendment would totally change the stand of the petitioner.