BANK OF BARODA Vs. FISHCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition it appears for lie fourth time, for leave to amend the written statement filed in this suit. The suit itself was instituted as far back as 14th of June, 1962. The original written statement was filed on the 27th of August, 1962. More than tight weeks thereafter when the suit appeared in the list for hearing the defendant sought to amend the written statement. Two applications for such amendment -- one dated 22nd January, 1973, and the other dated 23rd February, 1973, were withdrawn with leave of the Court to file fresh applications. On the 22nd March, 1973 the third application was filed for amendment to incorporate as paragraphs 10 (a) & 10 (b) of the written statement the following :--

(2.) In an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by one Narendjra Nath Kundu on the 20th of July, 1973, it is submitted that the present application is a mala fide one calculated to delay the hearing of the suit and that it is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is further stated that the application for the previous amendment of the written statement wss made with more or less the same kind of averment. It is further disputed that the amendment was refused earlier solely due to insufficient details being furnished about the Pakisran Foreign Exchange Regulation law. Tt is further submitted that the attempt to incorporate almost the entire Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 of Pakistan is in violation of all principles and standards of drafting.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Das, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition submitted that the Foreign Law was to be pleaded u a fact. Therefore he has sought to incorporate the different provisions of the Pakistan Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947. Referring to Order 8, Rule 2 and Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he submitted that although material facts were to be stated in the pleadings and law was not to be pleaded. Foreign Law, however, was an exception to the latter. Mr. Das submitted that he was required to mention the sections of the Foreign Law specifically. In support of his proposition he referred to the Annual Practice, 1966, in which undei the note under Order 18, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules at page 375 on Foreign Law it is stated that