KHAZAN CHAND Vs. PIARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,000/ - on the basis of the promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant, an application for permission to appear and defend the suit was submitted by the defendant on June 8, 1978. The plaintiff raised an objection that the application was not in accordance with law as the paryer made by the defendant was only for permission to defend the suit. It was also stated by the plaintiff that no ground for permission to appear and defend the suit have been furnished in the said application and as such the same should be rejected. The defendant however vide his application dated June 30, 1978 submitted that he may be permitted to amend the application to pray clearly for permission to appear and defend the suit, as also to state the grounds ¢on the basis of which the permission to do so was being sought for. It was further stated in the application that due to non -availability of legal assistance the defendant could not furnish the grounds in his previous application. The application for amendment however, has been opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant having failed to give satisfactory grounds for permission to amend his previous application, the same be rejected in as much as a valuable right has accrued to the plaintiff and also because under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Permission to amend an application cannot be granted as the same could not be treated as pleadings in the suit. On the other hand it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that for the just decision of the case and for determining the real dispute between the parties, it was necessary to grant permission for amendment of the application which under the circumstances could be regarded as pleadings in the suit. The defendant has further submitted that in the interest of justice he may be permitted to furnish grounds on the basis of which he would like to contest the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of the money.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the application for grant of permission to appear and defend the suit submitted by the defendant on 8th of June, 1978, it appears that though in the main petition it has been submitted by him that he would like to appear and defend the suit yet in the prayer clause the only prayer was for permission to appear. On a reading of this application as a whole I am of the view that the application be regarded for permission to appear and defend the suit as in Clause 2 of the application, the defdt. has clearly stated that he would like to appear and defend the suit of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter it was not necessary for the defendant, to apply for the amendment of the application dated 8th June, 1978, seeking permission to defend the suit also. However, as no grounds had been given for permission to appear and defend the suit, the application dated 30th June, 1978, for amendment is, infact for the permission to supply the grounds on the basis of which the defendant would like to appear and defend the suit.

(3.) ONE of the grounds raised by the defendant for permission to appear and defend the suit was that the promissory note was without consideration inasmuch as he had received only Rs. 21.000/ - and not Rs. 29,000/ - as is alleged by the plaintiff. Keeping all the matters in view I am of the opinion that the defendant should be permitted to supply the grounds for permission to appear and defend the suit as that would facilitate the determination of the real dispute between the parties. The necessary permission to submit grounds therefore, is granted.