HARUN TOPNO Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 1408 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for an amendment in the writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner explains that though in this application the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.5.1994 passed by the respondent 5, but Regional Manager who has passed the order dated 3.1.1995 could not be impleaded as a respondent, nor could the appellate order dated 3.1.1995 which is Annexure -B to the counter affidavit could be annexed to the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the omission is due to inadvertence, and in this view of the matter, it is necessary to implead the Regional Manager as a respondent with a corresponding prayer for quashing of the order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the Regional Manager.

(3.) HOWEVER , considering the fact that the amendment sought for would not, in my view, change the original prayer made in the writ petition, prayer for amendment is allowed. Accordingly, let the Regional Manager be impleaded as respondent no. 5 and the order dated 3.1.1995 be annexed as annexure to the writ petition.