SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
Smt. Sarala Devi Derasaria – Plaintiff
Versus
Manik Lal Sharma & Ors. – Defendants
G.A. No.2277 of 2017 In C.S. No.151 of 2011
Decided On : 13-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. G.S. Pal, Mr. L.R. Mondal, Mr. Subhasis Pal
For the Defendants : Mr. P.K. Drolia

An amendment of the plaint should be necessary for determining the real controversy and should not change the nature and character of the suit.

Headnote:

Amendment of Plaint - Loan Transaction - Order VI, Rule 17 - The court dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new case of loan transaction, as it was not necessary for determining the real controversy and would change the nature and character of the suit.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to introduce a new case of loan transaction after the defendant filed a written statement denying the loan transaction and introducing a case of goods sold and delivered.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proposed amendment was not necessary for determining the real controversy and would change the nature and character of the suit. The court dismissed the application for amendment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment of the plaint to introduce a new case of loan transaction was necessary for determining the real controversy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an amendment should be necessary for determining the real question in controversy and should not change the nature and character of the suit. The court also emphasized that the power to allow an amendment should be exercised judiciously and with great care.

Final Decision: The application for amendment was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Court : This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. In the amendment application the plaintiff has stated that amendment of plaint is necessary in view of the issue no.(xvi) which has been framed by this Court to the effect whether the cheques issued by the plaintiff are for the price of the goods delivered by the defendant no.1. Paragraph 3 of the amendment application is set out below:-

“3. That it has become much necessary to amend the plaint on the basis of issues framed particularly in view that the issue no.(xvi) has been framed that whether the cheques issued by the plaintiff for the price of the goods delivered by the defendant no.1.”

2. In support of the prayer for amendment the plaintiff has also stated in paragraph 4 that plaintiff was the manufacturer and dealer of leather hand gloves prior to joining the defendant no.2 as partner of Aasha Kutir Shilpa on 18.09.2004 and she, as proprietress of Aasha Kutir Shilpa, is still manufacturer and dealer of leather hand gloves after retirement of the defendant no.2 as on 1st April, 2006 from the said M/s. Aasha Kutir Shilpa. The plaintiff has no experience at all in iron steel items and she never dealt with iron steel items in her lifetime, nor has she any trade licence and necessary documents to deal with iron steel items. Paragraph 4 is set out below:-

“4. The plaintiff states that she was the manufacturer and dealer of Leather Hand Gloves prior to joining of the defendant no.2 as partner of Aasha Kutir Shilpa on 18.09.2004 and she as proprietress of Aasha Kutir Shilpa, is still manufacturer and dealer of Leather Hand Gloves after retirement of the defendant no.2 as on 01.04.2006 from said M/s. Aasha Kutir Shilpa. The plaintiff has no experience at all in Iron Steel items and she never dealt in Iron Steel items in her lifetime nor she has any Trade License and necessary documents to deal in with Iron Steel Items.”

3. Before going into the scope of the amendment of the plaint it is profitable to discuss the plaint case first. It has been averred in the plaint that defendant no.1 is the proprietor of the business concern being M/s. Shiv Shakti Iron & Steel Company and father of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 is the Manager and looks after the business of defendant no.1. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant no.2, as Manager of Shiv Shakti Iron & Steel Company, and defendant no.1, as proprietor of said Shiv Shakti Iron & Steel Company, were introduced to the plaintiff in the usual course of business by the husband of the plaintiff who happened to be a friend of defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 expressed his desire to join as a partner of the plaintiff’s proprietorship business of Aasha Kutir Shilpa. On 18th September, 2004, the defendant no.2 joined as a partner of Aasha Kutir Shilpa and subsequently, the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for a loan and obtained diverse amounts as loan from the plaintiff totaling Rs.18,65,625/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five) only, in the name of said proprietorship business of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 took loan of Rs.18,65,625/- on various dates between 11th July, 2005 and 30th August, 2005. It was verbally agreed that in the event of failure to repayment of the said loan by the defendant no.1 even after demand made by the plaintiff, he would repay the same together with interest @ 10% per annum. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor in the said transaction and he promised to pay the said loan amount with interest. All the payments made by the plaintiff are in cheque, particulars of the cheques have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. In paragraph 14 of the plaint it has been stated that cause of action for the suit arose on 11/07/2005, 13/07/2005, 16/08/2005 and 03/09/2005, when the loan totaling of Rs.18,65,625/- was granted to Shiv Shakti Iron & Steel Company in instalments a
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top