SANJAY YADAV, J.

(1) BY way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant calls in question the legality of the order dated 18-1-2010; whereby, the First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, rejected the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as CPC), for amendment in the written statement. As also an application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.

(2) THE Civil Suit in question is at the instance of respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 68,000/- said to be the remainder of part payment from Rs. 1,00,000/- said to be borrowed by the husband (since deceased) of the petitioner/defendant during his lifetime. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the late husband of the petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid to him by Cheque No. 268253 dated 4-3-2003. In lieu of security thereof, he had issued post dated cheques in favour of the respondent/plaintiff bearing No. 688631 dated 2-7- 2003. The said cheque when was put for encashment was returned on 5-11-2003 with an endorsement "deceased account", as the husband of the petitioner/defendant had expired on 5-5-2003. The respondent/plaintiff claiming that the petitioner/defendant having succeeded to the business of her husband for which the said amount was tendered called upon her to settle the claim, whereupon the amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 14-3-2004 was paid vide drafts bearing No. 547900 and 547901. It is for the remainder amount along with interest that the respondent/plaintiff brought the said suit.

(3) THE petitioner/defendant raised the defence, that the matter was amicably settled when an agreement was entered between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff on 15-3-2004. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant proposed to amend the written statement vide application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for incorporating following additional pleadings :

(i) That, as per the fact set-out in the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that she is dealing with business of money-lending as well as so admitted in her deposition. But she nowhere made averment that she has got herself registered as Money lender as well as failed to produce registration certificate. In absence of such registration, the suit is not maintainable according to law.

(ii) That, the plaintiff is carrying on business of money-lending, but in consonance of legal provision she is neither regularly maintaining account separately of all transaction for each debtor in respect of loan and interest. Her nor furnished legible statement of account under her signature to the defendant or her late husband as well as to the Sub Divisional Officer concerned, she is therefore not entitled for any sum of interest and cost of the suit, but penal action under section 11 F.F of Money Lenders Act.

(iii) Though the contents of paras 1 to 7 of the plaint have been collectively denied in para 1 of the written statement, but to make it more specific and clear it is particularly further pleaded that this defendant did not in-heritate any assets and liability under the name of M/s Swayam Cell.Com from her late husband. THE plaintiff is called upon to strict proof. THE defendant is not required to repay the debt of her husband.

(iv) That, being Hindu widow by religion and just to get the peace to departed soul of her late husband as well as to preserve and maintain his dignity, prestige and image among the society, the answering defendant deemed fit and proper to discharge the outstanding liability of her late husband by entering into an amicably settlement that too not only with plaintiff alone by making payment of 50% but also to other in whose favour, liability exists such as Chhotelal Jain, Kapil Kumar Jain, Smt. Kamala Devi, Fabiyani, Brijesh Agrawal, Naresh Chandra Jain and Alish and Sons Jabalpur proprietor Ashok Rohara.

(4) THE a