Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Swastik Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs State Bank Of Saurashtra And Anr. on 10 July, 2002

Equivalent citations: II(2003)BC45

JUDGMENT

A.K. Srivastava, J. (Chairman)

1. Heard learned Counsels for both the sides and perused the records.

The appellant had approached DRT-I, Delhi with a prayer for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for incorporating certain facts which the appellant has specifically mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his application for amendment. Paragraph 6 of the amendment relates to a legal plea as to whether the alleged debt is one covered by the provisions of the Act in question. Paragraph 5 relates to certain allegations as to how the cheque came to be issued. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, after hearing the contesting parties, merely held that a perusal of the records shows that similar application containing same facts was filed on 12.4.1999 and the same was dismissed and, therefore, the present application was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the same. But, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant and conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also, the earlier application for amendment was vague and did not mention the facts which the appellant wanted to be incorporated in the written statement by way of amendment. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the present application is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier application. Learned Counsel for the respondent, of course, contended that the appellant should have withdrawn the earlier application and allowed it to be dismissed as withdrawn to enable him to file a fresh application with more details and, the appellant, having failed to do so, cannot maintain a second application. But I am unable to accept this contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is not the case of the respondent Bank that the amendments now proposed were actually proposed in the earlier application, were considered and were declined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present application is barred or is not maintainable.

2. Therefore, I am of the view that learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi, was not right in dismissing the application as not maintainable. Interests of justice require that the application for amendment should be reconsidered on merits.

3. Accordingly, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the order of DRT-I, Delhi and the matter has to be remanded back to the said Tribunal for disposal of the amended application on merits after affording opportunity to both sides to put forward their rival contentions.

4. Appeal is allowed accordingly, setting aside the order of DRT-I, Delhi. The matter is remanded back for disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above.

Since the appeal is disposed of today, this application also stands disposed of.