GANENDRA NATH ROY Vs. SATYABALA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif refusing to accept an additional written statement filed by the Petitioner of this Court. The order passed by the learned Munsif is a very short one and may be quoted here:

(2.) The suit in connection with which this application was filed was instituted by the Plaintiff opposite party Sm. Satya Bala Basu for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,439 on a hand note. The main defence of the Defendant Petitioner who alone contested the suit in the trial court was that the hand note in question was not a genuine one. It appears that after the filing of the written statement both parties took steps and the suit was ultimately set down for peremptory hearing on November 27, 1956. A few days before that the Defendant filed an application for shifting the date of peremptory hearing. The date was accordingly changed to January 9, 1957. On an interim date, that is, on December 17, 1956 the Defendant Petitioner filed an application for amendment of his written statement by adding a certain paragraph in which a plea was taken that a substantial amount had been paid upon the hand note and this fact was not known to the Defendant Petitioner earlier. This application was rejected by the learned Munsif.

(3.) After hearing Mr. Roy on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Ghose on behalf of the Plaintiff opposite party, I am of opinion that this Rule must be made absolute because the grounds given by the learned Munsif for rejecting the application are not tenable in law. The learned Munsif was of opinion that there would be a definite improvement upon the original case of the Defendant if the application was allowed and that it would be "too difficult" for the Plaintiff to meet the amended case of the Defendant. It is not known exactly what the learned Munsif meant by the latter expression. The law certainly allows a Defendant to take whatever defence he chooses to take unless such defence is ruled out by some provision of law. The law does not at all take into its consideration the difficulty of the Plaintiff in such a matter. It may be that the defence which is sought to be taken in the petition of amendment is inconsistent with the main original plea of the Defendant that the hand note was a false and fabricated document. But it is permissible for a Defendant in a suit brought by the Plaintiff for recovery of money due on a hand note to take such an alternative plea. In my opinion, the learned Munsif should have accepted the application of the Petitioner for amending the written statement and his failure to do so amounts to a refusal to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him by law.