STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. MANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisionist-State Bank of Patiala (in short, 'the Bank') had earlier filed a civil suit for recovery against respondent Mandeep (in short 'the borrower'). The primary claim was based on the averments that the bank had inadvertently mentioned that the loan has been advanced for the purchase of two wheeler when in fact it was for commercial vehicle TATA IRIS. Realizing this mistake the plaintiff-bank present petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the same and, thus, rectify the error which they claim was inadvertent. Since the defendant-borrower had not appeared and had been proceeded against ex-parte, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide impugned order dtd. 17/5/2016 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application and that is how the instant revision has come about.

(2.) Heard Mr. R.C. Taneja, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.

(3.) The only reason which has led to the passing of the impugned order that the applicant-plaintiff had earlier approached the Bank for a loan for purchase of an auto and now they intend incorporate and rectify it for the purchase of a commercial vehicle and held that since there was no material on the file to hold that amendment sought was result of inadvertent error had dismissed the application.