AHMAD SHAH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Order dated 2.5.92 of the VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain whereby the defendant's application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) On perusal of the amendment application it appears that the proposed amendment para 3 and para 9 are with respect to the fact which has been pleaded in para 3 of the written -statement. In the written -statement the defendant has pleaded that he signed the document as a witness. This shows that the document was written. It was executed and he appended his signature as a witness. Now by the proposed amendment "para 3 and para 9" the defendant wants to show that his signatures were obtained on blank form to be used for other case. This amounts to resiling from the earlier statement and, therefore this aspect of the proposed amendment has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Now so far as the amendment in para 5,6 and 10 are concerned, those are necessary for the proper adjudication in the matter. As a matter of fact, these amendments ought to have been accepted and the party (plaintiff) could be compensated by way of cost.