O.A. No. 39 of 2003. Case: State Bank of India Vs G.S. Punesar and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case Number:O.A. No. 39 of 2003
Party Name:State Bank of India Vs G.S. Punesar and Ors.
Judges:S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
Issue:Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 19(25); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 153 - Order 6, Rules 17 - Order 30 Rule 1; Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rule - Rule 18
Citation:II (2005) BC 92
Judgement Date:January 03, 2005
Court:Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Order:

S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer

  1. The first petition dated 9.8.2004 of applicant Bank is for amendment of plaint in the manner prescribed therein.

  2. It is averred in the petition that due to oversight and inadvertence some material and relevant facts could not be drafted in the plaint. It is also their contention that though the amendment is large in number but it does not change the nature and character of the suit. Moreover reliefs sought for in the plaint remain unchanged. Applicant further contends that the amendment is for correct appraisal of the case and unless the same is allowed they will put to irreparable loss.

  3. Defendants vehemently controverted on the ground that there is no provision in law for such amendment and, therefore, the amendment petition is not maintainable. It is also the stand of defendants that the proposed amendments are large in number accompanied with voluminous documents which will change the entire nature of the suit and that there is 'no ground' furnished in the petition for amendment. Defendants further contend that the amendment petition has been filed after filing of written statement and will cause prejudice to them. Besides, it is alleged that Bank has got their signature on blank forms and filing belatedly the same by filling up the blank forms fraudulently.

  4. Heard the parties and perused the rejoinder of defendants dated 7.9.2004 and the written argument of applicant dated 28.12.2004 including other relevant case papers.

  5. The applicant Bank in the proposed amendment wants to additionally refer to revival letters dated 30.4.1990, 14.7.1993 and 10.7.1996. In the instant case it appears from the original application that loan was sanctioned on 8.4.1987 and was enhanced on 16.10.1990 and subsequently on 22.3.1999. After final enhancement on 22.3,1999 last revival letters were executed on 16.3.2002. Accordingly production of interim revival letters simply throws more light and gives better particulars. These are not to cure the defect of limitation as last enhancement of loan and last revival letter had already been reflected in the original application.

  6. Applicant Bank further wants to bring on record the request dated 5.3.1987 for grant of loan for Rs. 6 lacs which was sanctioned on 8.4.1987 and various documents executed in the regard. Undisputedly the original application states about the loan of Rs. 6 lacs sanctioned on 8.4.1987. Therefore, the aforesaid proposed amendment cannot be...

To continue reading

Request your trial