GIRDHARI LAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the appellate stage of the proceedings, the appellant has moved this court for leave to amend the written statement. It is this application that requires consideration and determination by 1his court.

(2.) THE appellant has averred that in the written statement filed by him in the trial court he did not in detail spell out his defence. The suit of the plaintiff -respondent was based on a promissory note. The defendant appellant had categorically dis -claimed the execution of the promissory note. He put the plaintiff to strict proof of the same. Inter -alia the defendant had submitted in the written statement that it was common knowledge that financiers obtain signatures of the borrowers on a blank paper. When the defendant appellant appeared as a witness he spelt out that the signatures of the appellant were taken on a blank piece of paper and that the said document had been filled in later on in English. The defendant appellant was a literate business man and was in a capacity to execute and write the promissory notes himself. The learned trial court did not believe the statement of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had deliberately and under no mistake omitted to incorporate the material facts in his written statement and he could not be allowed at a later stage of the proceedings to change his front and make a new case for himself. It is submitted that the defendant has suffered on account of not making a detailed and fuller plea with regard to the fraud practised upon him as mentioned above and defendant has failed on a technical plea. The trial court appears to have been greatly affected by this absence of full and detailed written statement. The defendant, therefore, prays that in the interest of justice, he be allowed to amend the written statement in order to enable him to submit a better, fuller and detailed written statement.

(3.) THIS application has been resisted by the plaintiff respondent on manifold grounds. It is submitted that it is no stage to seek leave for amending the written statement, that no reasonable cause exists for this amendment. As a matter of fact, the categorical denial of the execution of the promissory note in the written statement is evident of the fact that the plea now sought to be raised falls within the purview of inconsistency of pleadings, which cannot be allowed. The application is misconceived and is meant to protract the proceedings and embarrass the fair disposal of use suit Under law, the purpose of allowing amendment is only to enable the court to decide the real question of contraversy between the parties. The present case has already been effectively decided by the court below on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties. The appellant has not come with clean hands to the court and is guilty of laches.