ANDHRA BANK Vs. K.C. AJMERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents produced by them at the hearing, in the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested 'in it under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. by rejecting the application made by the plaintiff -bank for amendment of its plaint.

(2.) HELD :As already stated earlier, the substance of the case set up by the plaintiff -bank against the defendant No.3 i.e., the manager of the defendant No. 2 Allahabad Bank was that it was as a result of a fraud of the nature described above practised by him that the plaintiff -bal\k was wrongfully made to part with Rs. 2,60,000/ - in favour of the wife of the defendant No.1 i.e. defendant No.4. According to the plaintiff -bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on account of the said fraud, all the four defendants were liable to make good the said amount together with interest to it.

(3.) THUS , where the cause of action in a suit is based on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence, the pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint in the said regard have to be very clear, definite and specific. It is well settled that the general allegations of fraud, etc., however strong the words in which they are stated may be, if they are unaccompanied by particulars, they would be insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud, etc., of which any Court ought to take notice. Thus, according to the law of pleadings, in the suit in question, instituted by the plaintiff -bank against the four defendants, where the relief for recovery of money was claimed on the ground of fraud, the 'fraud' was certainly a material fact, and it was necessary for the plaintiff -bank not only to plead the said fact specifically but also to plead such relevant particulars on the basis of which it was intended by it to substantiate the said fact. Needless to say, since in the case of a 'fraud' the intention of the person said to have committed the same constituted one of its essential ingredients, it was quite proper, even if it was not necessary, on the part of the plaintiff -bank to substantiate the fact of existence of such intention by pleading all such facts or particulars within its knowledge on which it intended to rely on for the purpose. In the above connection, as already stated above, it is significant to note that while setting up its claim for recovery of money against the four defendants, the plaintiff -bank had already generally pleaded the fact that the manager of the defendant No.2 Allahabad Bank, namely, defendant No.3 had behaved in a similarly deceitful manner in the cases of three other cheques received from another bank i.e. Bank of Maharashtra and thus adopted a similar modus operendi in defrauding other banks in the past. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Judge, while considering the said pleading, failed to appreciate that the facts mentioned therein had been pleaded by the plaintiff -bank with a view to substantiate the fact of existence of the relevant deceitful intention on the part of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit transaction also. The application in question for amendment of its plaint was made by the plaintiff -bank only with a view to exemplify the said general pleading by furnishing material particulars in respect of the case. It is apparent that the trial Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. by rejecting the said application made by the plaintiff -bank for amendment of its plaint. Revision allowed.