The plaintiff must make a choice at the time of filing the suit itself to claim in Indian currency or in foreign currency, and the formalities required for making the claim in foreign currency must be clearly spelt out.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a neat question of law relatable to the amendment of the plaint filed by respondent-Punjab National Bank in O. A. No. 508 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), New Delhi. The amendment application stands allowed by DRT, New Delhi. The appeal of the petitioner-Indian Bank against the said order filed before Debts Recovery. Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbal has also failed The amendment appears to be innocuous. However, it has wide ramifications as far as Indian Bank is concerned. Therefore, feeling aggrieved against the orders of the subordinate authorities, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Indian Bank. In order to appreciate the controversy in this petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail and a cursory look of material facts would suffice the purpose. These material facts as noted by the DRAT may be reproduced as under:

( 2 ) THE Punjab National Bank agreed to advance loan facility to the extent of 6 million US Dollars to M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited. This M/s. Oswal Agro Mills limited in consideration of the said facility agreed to provide to M/s. Indo Europe food Ltd. having its registered office at London, with guarantee bond in terms of the agreement between them. Advance to be repaid by deductions at 10% of the value of each export invoice for the supply of goods i. e. oilseeds, oil extractions and oil cakes, etc. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited approached the Indian Bank for the issue of a guarantee, and accordingly the appellant issued guarantee on 3. 2. 1983. There-upon the Punjab National Bank on 1. 3. 1983 released a sum of 6 million US dollars to the respondent no. 2 M/s. Indo Europe, who in turn remitted the amount to the appellant. As per the terms of the guarantee, the respondent no. 2 M. /s. Indo europe Food Ltd. by way of security for all sums within or at any time owing due or payable under the Loan agreement dated 18/2/1983 assigned all its rights, title, interest in and to receive any sums whatsoever under or in connection with the guarantee of the appellant bank. Suffice to say, the Punjab National Bank ultimately filed suit for recovery of Rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 paise equivalent to US dollars 5236274. 54, alongwith interest in Indian currency at Rs. 2,87,47,590. 48 paise which is equivalent to US Dollars 1711166. 10. The said suit was initially filed in Delhi High Court. On enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993", the said suit came to be transferred to Debts recovery Tribunal, Delhi and was numbered as O. A. No. 508/1996.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned here that the suit was filed in the year 1989. An application for amendment of plaint was filed in the year 1998 i. e. almost a year after the institution of the suit. By this amendment Punjab National Bank sought to delete conversion component of the amount in Indian currency from the various clauses as well as relief clause of the plaint. The reason given is that due to mistake or oversight the Punjab National Bank claimed Indian rupees equivalent to US dollars in the suit and this Indian rupees equivalent to US Dollars is sought to be deleted. On deletion it would be decree in terms of US Dollars only. The amendment is sought in the heading/title of the suit, para-23ofthe plaint as well as in the prayer clause which is para-50 of the plaint. The heading in the original plaint reads as under:

"suit FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,79,86,380. 27 EQUIVALENT OF US dollars 5236284. 54 INTEREST RS. 2,87,47,590. 48 EQUIVALENT OF dollars 17,11,166. 10 AND COSTS. "

( 4 ) BY amendment Punjab National Bank wants rupee component to be deleted so that to make it a suit for recovery of US Dollars only both for principal as well as interest. The material part of para-23 and para-50 of the original plaint reads as under: para No. 23 of the plaint, to the extent relevant is as follows:

"a claim of Rs. 3,09,36,112. 94 equivalent to $