AUDUTH TIMBLO Vs. KEDAR RAMAKANT KAKODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for Respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.11.2016 by which application (Ex.D-39) filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff for amendment of plaint is rejected by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus The petitioner, who has described himself as a businessman, has filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs 49,41,169.24ps along with further interest. The case made out in the plaint is that, the respondent had sought 'money loan' from the petitioner on account of which the petitioner had advanced various amounts to the petitioner under agreements dated 4.5.2001, 4.2.2002, 15.11.2002, and 27.1.2003. The terms of these agreements are more or less similar, in which the the respondent had agreed to repay the loan by a stipulated date, along with interest @ 18 % pa.