Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Add the following as para No.I(1) in the Written Statement immediately after para I. This defendant further submits that the suit promissory note is rank forgery, brought into existence by the plaintiff by forging the signature of this defendant to gain wrongfully at the expense of the defendant and to harass him."

I.A.No.569 of 2016 was opposed before the Court below by filing requisite counter and it was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The allegations made in 'paragraph No.G' are specific that the petitioner allegedly handed over blank signed promissory notes and cheques to Y. Nagabhushan Rao and said Y. Nagabhushan Rao, taking advantage of those promissory notes got filed a suit MSM,J CRP_1205_2017 and started litigation and got issued legal notice through the plaintiff/the respondent herein an filed suit though a crime was registered against him. When the petitioner specifically admitted that, he handed over blank signed promissory notes and cheques, he is not entitled to contend that the signed blank promissory notes are rank forgery, since the petitioner admitted his signature on the documents. The proposed amendment is totally inconsistent to the allegations made in 'paragraph No.G' of the written statement. However, the entire evidence is closed and at the stage of argument, the present petition is filed. But, in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, in the absence of any explanation that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not bring those facts on record before the court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the written statement. In the entire affidavit, no explanation was offered though his failure to amend the written statement at appropriate stage i.e. before commencement of trial. Moreover, he filed a petition in I.A.No.303 of 2016 before the Court to refer the disputed signatures and promissory notes along with admitted signatures of the petitioner for expert for opinion. Even then, he did not realise the absence of any pleading with regard to forgery of signature on the promissory note i.e. documents sued upon. But, only when this Court made certain observations while disposing of C.R.P.No.4884 of 2016, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint. Filing petition in I.A.No.303 of 2016 and prosecuting for a period of two years, without taking any steps, itself is suffice to conclude that this petitioner did not exercise due diligence.

If, these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to amend the written statement incorporating the plea of rank forgery of signature of the petitioner on the promissory note i.e. document sued upon. On the other hand, the petitioner miserably failed to bring those facts on record before the Court prior to commencement of trial. Thus, in view of the failure of this petitioner to establish that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not bring those facts to the notice of this Court. The amendment cannot be allowed at the stage when the entire evidence is closed and when the suit is posted for AIR 2013 Punjab and Haryana page 77 AIR 2000 Kant 169 MSM,J CRP_1205_2017 arguments. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.