( 1 ) THIS is a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree that Section 29 of the Stale Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was ultra vires the constitution and a further declaration to the following effect :

"that a decree of declaration he passed declaring that the notice dated 19th December, 1988 issued by defendant No. 2 on behalf of defendants No. 1 which is annexure a to the plaint is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the socialistic principles for which the Corporation has been established and, therefore, the same is illegal and unenforceable. It be also declared thal the amount as claimed in the said notice is not due to the defendants No. l from the plaintiff and there is no intentional default on the part of plaintiff, is making of the payments to the defendants No. 1 Corporation. "

( 2 ) IT appears that the plaintiff had made borrowings from the Delhi Financial Corporation in the year 1981. It could not honour the schedule of repayment. On 15. 12. 1988 the Corporation had issued a notice under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act to the plaintiff. The declaration that the notice was bad is sought for on the following grounds :

(A) That the plaintiff company having suffered losses for reasons beyond the control of its management, the charging of compound interest and not rescheduling the mode of repayment was arbitrary;

B) That the plaintiff had suffered losses due to negligent and mala fide behavior on the part of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking;

C) That the machines did not function property and did not give expected results;

D) That the plaintiff company was facing a number of competitors resulting into Financial unstability.

( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that the power and competence of the defendant to issue the notice under Section 29 has not been disputed nor is there any allegation of mala fides on the part of the defendants. The grounds of challenge noticed in para 2. above show that the challenge is to the propriety of the notice.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the defendants challenge has been laid to the maintainability of the suit on two grounds: Firstly, that declaration of the nature sought for by the plaintiff was not covered by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; and secondly that the defendants were exercising their statutory right and seeking statutory remedy under Section 29 of the Act which was not open to judicial review and interference on the grounds set out in the plaint.

( 5 ) DURING the hearing of these objections the plaintiff has filed an application for amendment being I. A. No. 543/95. To the extent to which the plaintiff proposes to plead certain payments made to the defendant, the amendment can be allowed. So much part of the application as proposes to plead certain extracts from a Supreme Court judgment cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint; the introduction of such pleas being contrary to the law of pleadings in a civil suit. Plaintiff can rely on the law laid down by the Supreme Court without making it a part of the pleadings. In any case, the application does not deserve to be allowed inasmuch as in spite of keeping in view the plaint along with the application for amendment, I have formed an opinion that the suit does not lie.

( 6 ) VIRES of Section 29 were upheld by a Divisions Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Sriniwasa Kandasari Sugars vs Govt of A. P. AIR 1976 AP93. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken therein. Reference may also be had to the APSFC vs M/s Gar Re-rolling Mills JT 1994 (1) SC 586 and Shreeshlya Crowns and Screws (Pvt) Ltd vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 KARNATAKA 130 ).

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on Mahesh Chandra V. Regional Manager Up Financial Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 935, in support of his plea of the maintainability of the suit while the counsel for the defendant has relied on the decisions of their Lordships in UP Financial Corporation vs. Naini Oxygen and