P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) I have no hesitation in dismissing, this application for amendment of the written statement.

( 2 ) IN this application the defendant asks for amendment of its written statement after about, five years. The suit was filed in 1946 and so was the written statement. I am satisfied that this application is not bona fide and the unusual delay is not explained by the affidavits.

( 3 ) AN attempt to explain the long period of five years is made in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition of the defendant company. The substance of that explanation is that some of the officers of the defendant company were alleged to have committed certain offences under the Defence of India Act and the Iron and Steel Control Order and in connection with the investigation of the case all books, papers and documents including the files relating to the disputes in the suit were taken over by the police. But even then these cases ended in the acquittal of the officers in July 1950. For the period from July 1950 until 11-7-1951 just about a year, no explanation is offered. In para. 4 of the petition it is alleged that while the eases were-pending the papers remained in the custody of the police. But surely the causes cannot be said to be pending when the defendant company's officers were acquitted and as stated in para 3 of the petition the officers were acquitted in July 1950. In para. 4 of the petition it is alleged that the papers were made available to the defendant in the early part of 1951. No fact is stated in the petition or affidavit-in-reply to explain why all this time from July 1950 to early part of 1951 was taken for the defendant company to get the papers and nothing is shown what attempts or steps in that time were taken and on what dates for the recovery of such papers. What that early part of 1951 means is not stated but in any event this present application was not made until 11-7- 1951. which is a very significant date. This suit was once decreed on 29-3-1950 against the defendant. The decree was set aside on 15-5-1950 and the suit was restored. On 5-6-1961 the plaintiff's counsel mentioned the matter before my learned brother Sarkar J. for an early date of hearing and one month's time was given for the suit to appear in the peremptory list on 9-7-1951. Nothing was done even during this period of one month when the suit was under special order directed to be put on the list on 9-7-1951. The suit ultimately appeared on 10-7-1951 in the daily list. It was then, after the suit had appeared on the daily list for disposal that the defendant company thought of taking out the present summons. This summons was taken out on the very following day after the suit had appeared in the list on 10-7-1951. These dates do not support the defendant's rather laboured explanations for the delay offered in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition on the basis of cases with the (Government and the acquittal of the Officers of the defendant company in July 1950 and papers being made available in the early part of 1951. I am unable to believe that these assertions made in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition are at all bona fide. To me it appears that the only purpose of this application is to harass the. plaintiff and delay the final hearing of this five year old commercial suit.

( 4 ) ON the merits of the amendments proposed the case of the defendant company should in my opinion also fail. The proposed amendments are shown in red ink in the schedule to the petition.

( 5 ) THE proposed amendments require to be analysed in order to show their nature and character.

( 6 ) THEY plead in great details certain contracts which the defendant company had with the Governor-General-in-Council for supplying diverse quantity of Block Tackle and Pulley Blocks. The terms are set out in detail. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are all new amendments which do not find a place in the original written statement. The next amendment that has been proposed is in para. 6 where the defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document