DAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DARSHAN SINGH MANN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DARSHAN Singh Mann filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 67,850/- against Davinder Kumar Sharma on the basis of pronote are receipt alleged to have been executed on 3.6.1996 by the latter in his favour. Defendant contested the suit. It was denied that he received any consideration of Rs. 60,000/- on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt. It was denied that he ever executed any pronote or receipt as set up by the plaintiff. Later on Defendant made an application for amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, he sought to plead that in fact, he (defendant) had floated committee in the year 1989, in which number of respectables were the participants which was for a period of 12 months. After the expiry of 12 months, the committee used to be reconstituted and the composition of members changed. Plaintiff was, however, continuous member of the said committee. Defendant was its Incharge. Plaintiff in order to secure his money by way of security used to take pronote and receipt from the defendant being Incharge. Certain members had gone defaulters unable to contribute to the committee. There was stagnation in the flow of the business of the committee. There was nothing outstanding against the defendant but the defendant filed this suit on the basis of the pronote and receipt, which he had executed on account of the aforesaid circumstances.

(2.) CIVIL Judge, Junior Division, Dabwali declined this application and refused this amendment to the written statement.

(3.) IN Saraj Din v. Laxmi Bai, wife of Behari Lal and another, 1975 Rent Control Reporter 532, it was held that "when a new case is set up at a belated stage, amendment should not be allowed."