Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner challenging the order dated 06.03.2018 whereby an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery of Rs.39,70,000/- along with interest against the defendant-petitioner and another. It was averred that the plaintiff-respondents had been selling their agricultural produce to the defendants who were commission agents and the parties had known each other for some time. In November 2010 the plaintiff-respondents obtained a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Oriental Bank of Commerce for which the defendants stood as guarantors. It was stated that since the defendants had stood as guarantors, they asked the plaintiff-respondents for the passbook and cheque book of the account in which the loan amount had been credited. Since the plaintiff-respondents knew the defendants who had stood as guarantors, they handed over the passbook and cheque book to the defendants and also signed four blank cheques. According to the plaintiff-respondents the defendants used three of the signed cheques and withdrew Rs.39,70,000/- from their account without their knowledge. The plaintiff-respondents confronted the defendants about the unauthorized withdrawal but got no satisfactory answer from the defendants. The plaintiff-respondents lodged a FIR on 19.08.2011 against the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.39,70,000/- with interest was filed against the defendants. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants raising several preliminary objections. On merits it was denied that the plaintiff-respondents had ever handed over the passbook and cheque book or signed cheques to the defendants. It was submitted that the plaintiff-respondents borrowed huge sums of money at different points in time from the defendants and to repay the same they handed over three cheques for Rs.39,70,000/- to the defendants and that even after deducting the said amount certain amount was still due by the plaintiff-respondents. According to the defendants they had also lodged a FIR against the plaintiff-respondents on 03.03.2012.

3. On 08.04.2016 the Trial Court framed the issues. Issue No.1 reads as under :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.39,70,000/- as prayed for ? OPP”

On 19.04.2017 the evidence of the plaintiff-respondents was closed and the suit was adjourned for the evidence of the defendants.

4. On 21.08.2017, when the suit was fixed for the evidence of the defendants, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed for amendment of the written statement. According to the defendants, during investigation in the FIR dated 19.08.2011 lodged by the plaintiff-respondents the Police had taken in possession all the documents and ledgers and as such when the written statement was filed the defendants could not clarify/elucidate each and every entry and the settlement of accounts. As per the defendants the said accounts were lying in the Court of the JMIC and the defendants had copies of the same. Based on these accounts and ledgers the defendants wanted to amend para 3 of their written statement to mention in detail the amounts borrowed by the plaintiff-respondents and the settlement of the account on 30.11.2010. The plaintiff-respondents contested the said amendment application and filed a reply. Vide the impugned ord