( 1 ) A short pedigree table shall be useful in under- standing the relationship between the parties and the dispute : Jagan Nath-

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS No. 6 to 8 are the sisters of defendants No. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 7 Parmila Kumari is the wife of the plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj.

( 3 ) MESSRS Jagan Nath Prem Nath is a partnership firm of which defendant? No. 2 to 4 and their father Jagan Nath were the partners. Jagan Nath died in 1974 and the partnership was reconstituted and defendants No. 2 to 4 and their mother Smt. Sewa Dai became the partners.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj has filed a suit against the firm and defendants No. 2 to 8 for recovery of Rs. 18,500. 00 66 P. The Case"of -the plaintiff is that the firm was in financial difficulties and from time to time he was giving loan by way of deposits and that after adjusting the-amounts received by him (Rs. 3500. 00 towards the principal and Rs 4984. 00 towards interest) Rs. 18,500. 66 P. are due from the firm and the firm has not paid the said amount inspite of demands and requests. The plaintiff in para has in support of the claim relied upon a letter dated 3rd September 1979 written to him by defendant No. 4 and another letter dated 27th September 1979 again from defendant No. 4. The case of the plalntiff is that in the said two letters his claim was accepted by defendants No. 4 and 5.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS No. I to 3 in their written statement admitted that seme deposits were made by the plaintiff but contended that the total amount had been paid back and nothing was now due to the plaintiff. Defendants No. I to 3 denied that payment of Rs. 3500. 00 was towards the principal and Rs. 4984. 00 towards interest. Defendants No. I to 3 reiterated in para 12 of the written statement that the entire loan with interest had been paid back to the plaintiff. Defendants No. I to 3 pleaded that the letters dated 3rd September and 27th September 1979 have been obtained by the plaintiff in Collusion with defendants No. 4 and 5. Defendants No. I to 3 denied that cheque for Rs. 1000. 00 (mentioned in the letter dated 27th September 1979) was issued by M/s. Bharat Packaging and Allied Industries and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 4 at their instance.

( 6 ) DEFENDANTS No. 4 to 8 in a joint written statement admitted the payments said to have been made by the plaintiff but pleaded that since they are not in possession of the account books they are unable to make a definite statement regarding the amount payable to the plaintiff. The said defendants further pleaded that defendants No. 2 and 3 have been managing the affairs of defendant No. I and they had the account books with them and, therefore, defendants No. 4 and 5 are not liable. Defendant No. 4 admitted to have written the letters dated 3rd September 1979 pnd 2/th September 1979 and further having sent a cheque for Rs 1000. 00 but pleaded that the payment of the cheque was stopped at the instance of defendants No -. 2 and 3. They further pleaded that they are unable to reply para II of the plaint accurately in the absence of relevant record and account books.

( 7 ) ON 7th August 1982 defendants No. 4 and 5 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend paras 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 of the written statement. Defendants No. 4 and 5 have stated in the application that at the time of the filing of the written statement they were living with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had by exercising undue influence obtained the letters from defendants No. 4 and 5. Defendants No. 4 and 5 stated that the loan amounts alleged in the plaint had been paid back to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the admissions contained in the letters dated 3rd September 1979 and 27th September 1979 were obtained by the plaintiff under undue presure and influence.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff contested the application. The trial Judge on 22nd October 198