1996 Supreme(MP) 1253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
Shri Shambhoo Chitra Mindir - Applicant
Vs.
State Bank of Indore - Respondent
C.R. No. 768 of 1995 (J)
Decided On : 16-04-1996

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.6 R.17 – amendment application filed at belated stage – proposed amendment intended to put pleadings in better form – should not be allowed.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.14 R.5 – proposed issue already covered by issues framed earlier – no need to frame additional issue.

        Short Note

       The non – applicant – bank filed the instant suit for recovery of loan with interest against the present applicants. The plaintiff – bank has already produced its evidence. In the midst of evidence of the defendants, an application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed. The learned trial Judge rejected that amendment application on the ground that it is nothing but repetition of the pleadings already made. It was filed at a belated stage. By the same order, application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. for framing additional issue on the question of principal amount and rate of interest was also rejected.

       2. Held: After hearing the learned counsel, I have gone through the initial pleadings of the parties and also the contents of the application for amendment. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the amendment application that the proposed amendments were only in order to place the some pleadings in better form. The other application for framing additional issue in terms of section 34 C.P.C. relating to principal sum and interest can be said to be covered by the issues already framed. Since the proposed amendment was moved at a belated stage and only with a view to improve the pleadings without any additional facts, the Court committed no error in rejecting the two applications.

       3. The plaintiff had already recorded his evidence and the defendants were in the midst of their evidence. The application moved was highly belated and was not made at the appropriate time although the case set up on behalf of the bank was known to the defendants. The trial Court committed no error of jurisdiction in rejecting the two applications.