UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. SANTOKH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,60,086/ - against the Defendant -Respondent through Mr R. P. Dhanda, Manager of its Batala Branch. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent a plea was raised that Mr. Dhanda was not competent to file the suit on the behalf of the Bank. Realising the weight of the objection an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the Plaintiff Petitioner to plead and to show as to how Mr. Dhanda had actually been authorised to file the suit and to sign and verify the pleadings. This request for amendment has, however, been declined by the trial Court on the ground that by the time the application for amendment was moved, the loan which was sought to be recovered by the Bank had become barred by limitation and this had conferred some sort of a right on the Defendant which could not be taken away by allowing the prayer for amendment. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. Concededly the Petitioner bank was not seeking to add any thing to its claim i. e. the loan amount sought to be recovered from the Defendant Respondent and thus, to my mind, no question of limitation was involved in permitting the bank to amend its plaint. The reliance by the trial Court on Haridas Girdhardas v. Varadaraja Pillai : A. I. R 1971 S. C, 2366, appears to be misconceived. That was a case where the Suprpme Court had actually allowed the amendment of the plaint. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then seeks reliance on Banta Singh Ganga Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur : A. I. R. 1974 P&H 247 in order to sustain the impugned order. That, however, was a case where the Plaintiff sought to add to his claim -seeking to pre -empt six Kothas instead of five for which the suit had been filed, and it was under these circumstances that the learned Judges of the Bench opined that the amendment could not be allowed after the expiry of the period of limitation for pre -emption. As has been pointed out above in the instant case the Plaintiff is not seeking to add anything to his claim by way of amendment. All that the Plaintiff is trying to do is to raise a specific plea as to how Mr. Dhanda by whom the suit was initially filed was competent to file that suit. In my opinion, the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial Court dated December 20, 198(sic), is set aside. The Plaintiff -Petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint within a period of one month from today subject to payment of Rs. 500/ - as costs.