Case: Dena Bank Vs. Gautam Ratilal Shah & Others

S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.This appeal is preferred against the decision given by the Single Judge on plaintiffs Chamber Summons No. 571 of 1982 taken out by them in Suit No. 1975 for amendment of the plaint. By a brief order the learned Single Judge came to observe that since the amendment sought for the Chamber Summons sought to introduce a cause of action or cause of action different from the ones to be found different in the plaint, amendment ought not to be allowed. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons was directed to stand dismissed but with no order as to cost. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties a few facts may be briefly stated.2. In 1975 the appellants who are a nationalised Bank and who will hereinafter be referred to as the "Plaintiffs" filed a suit against the four Respondents who will hereinafter be referred to as "the Defendants" on promissory notes executed on 31st January, 1973 by the defendants .The suit was one under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the plaint an amount of Rs. 13,85,237.37 was claimed with further interest on a slightly lesser amount at 10 per cent per annum. In the body of the plaint it is set out that the loan was given to Shah Frozen Foods Private Ltd. and that in respect of certain credit facilities given to the said Company and money advanced thereon the said company as well as the defendants had jointly and severally executed a demand promissory note. Amounts due from the said Company in respect of two of its accounts have thereafter been mentioned and after setting out the correspondence the plaintiffs have claimed the aforesaid amount contending that the suit is one within Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and the reliefs claimed therein fall totally within the ambit of the said Order. It may be mentioned further that in the list of documents annexed to the plaint one finds reference only to the promissory notes, letters between the plaintiffs and the said Company and thereafter between the legal advisers of the plaintiffs an the defendants and /or their legal advisers.3. After the defendants to the suit were served with the writ of summons, they find their appearance within the time permitted by the rules with the result that the plaintiffs took out a Summons for judgment. The said summons for judgment was duly served upon the advocates representing the defendants and in those proceedings affidavits were filed by the several defendants. The stands taken by the defendants, were not identical but at least in the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant No. 2 but more particularly in that filed on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4 it was contended that the suit simpliciter upon the promissory notes was incomplete and that the defendants were in the position of guarantors, the principal debtor being the said Company. It was also urged in the affidavit in reply and particularly in that filed by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 that apart from the promissory notes the defendants had executed various documents, including a deed of guarantee and it was contended that the promissory notes and the deed of guarantee as well as the deed of hypothecation were required to be considered together. In their affidavit in rejoinder it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, by the Assistant General Manager that the suit was based on promissory notes only. The defendants contention that they were entitled to inspection of the deed of hypothecation or the letter of continuity (guarantee) was disputed. It was emphasised that the plaintiffs suit was based only on the negotiable instruments, viz.,the two promissory notes and not on the guarantee. 4. On the Summons for judgment unconditional leave was granted to the defendants to defend the suit and the suit was directed to stand transferred to the List of Commercial Causes. Further directions as regards filing of Written Statement and discovery were also given. It would appear that in pursuance of these directions defendants Nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statement on 24th January, 1977. The 2nd defendant thereafter filed his Written Statement on the 22nd September, 1981 and the 1st Defendant on 9th August, 1982. The stand taken in the Written Statement is substantially in accord with that indicated in the respective affidavits in reply. To deal with the chronologically defendants Nos. 3 & 4 in their written Statement have contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue simpliciter on the promissory notes and that the liability of the defendants was as guarantors. It was further contented that the plaintiffs had acted in a manner inconsistent with the safety or security given by the Company and had permitted the 1st defendant to deal with the same. Certain action of the first defendant have been set out by reason of which it is alleged that the said security was jeopardised and it was urged that thereby the other guarantors had been discharges. Broadly speaking, this very stand is reflected in the written statement filed on behalf of the 2nd defendant. He also contends that the promissory notes were obtained from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as the then directors of the Company. In his written Statement the 1st defendant has principally relied upon briefly the legal plea and states that the liabilities of the defendants arose only as guarantors and/or sureties in respect of amounts, if any, due and payable by the Company to the plaintiffs and not as debtors simpliciter upon the promissory notes.5. Before adverting to the circumstances under which the Chamber Summons cane to be taken out, it may be mentioned that an affidavit of documents was made by the plaintiffs on the 14th June, 1982 and in the said affidavit of documents the plaintiffs have referred to the agreement of hypothecation, the letter of continuity, the demand promissory notes and the deed of guarantee all dated 31st January, 1973.6. Now we may advert to the circumstances under which the Chamber Summons came to be taken out. These circumstances have been indicated is an affidavit of March 1985 filed on behalf of the appellants in pursuance of directions given by the Division Bench previously. According to this affidavit, the matter was originally handled by a firm of Advocates viz. M/s. Motichand & Devidas and this continued up to 1979 when the proprietor of the said firm Mr. Tanubahi Desai, a well known Advocate of this Court expired. The present Advocates were engaged in May, 1979, but according to this affidavit, it was only after briefs were delivered to Counsel for the appeal in June, 1982 that Counsel advised that amendment was necessary. According to this affidavit, when the defences had been taken in the affidavits in reply which defences have been indicated therein, the previous Advocates i.e. the said Tanubhai, had advised that it was not necessary to amend the plaint and the suit must continue as filed, i.e. as a suit simpliciter on the promissory notes.7. By the Chamber Summon dated 3rd September, 1982, very substantial amendments are being sought in the plaint. These are indicated in the schedule to the Chamber Summons. By the said schedule, paragraphs 4-A, 4-B and 6-A are sought to be added and paragraph 8 sought to be amended. The amendment sought for in paragraphs 4-A and 4-B refer to the letters of continuity and letters of guarantee all executed on the same date on which the promissory notes were executed, viz., 31st January, 1973. Paragraph 6-A sought to be added with the alleged security created in favour of the plaintiffs by the company and by the said paragraph the plaintiff purport to point out that the security was no longer existing. By the amendment sought for of paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs seek a money decree not only under the promissory notes but also under the deed of guarantee and further not only as principal debtors but also alternatively as guarantors.8. As already stated, the Chamber summons was rejected since in the opinion of the learned Singh Judge, the plaintiff had sought to introduce thereby a different cause of action and obviously the same was sought to be done at a very late stage. Mr. Chinai appearing before us on behalf of the appellant urged that the essential nature of the suit was not sought to be altered and despite the amendments sought for and even when the amendments were allowed, the suit would be for a money decree by the bank against its debtors. He further urged that the Court was required to approach the question of amendment in order to do substantial justice between the parties and to bring out the real question in controversy. Finally it was contented by him that the fact that a suit on guarantee would be technically barred in 1982 was not relevant and that interests of justice required the amendment to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respective defendants referred us to the aforesaid facts and contented that irrespective of the general position, this was a case where the plaintiff Bank had opted for a particular cause of action and had obstinately persisted in maintaining the same even though the correct position had been pointed out by the Defendants both in their affidavits in reply to the Summons for judgment as also in their Written Statements. It was submitted that this was not the case of a plaintiff who had made a bona fide mistake or who was not aware of the correct legal position of his rights. On the other and according to the Counsel appearing for the respective respondents the plaintiffs were aware that they could file a suit under the letter of continuity and claim the amount from the defendants under the letter of continuity and letters of guarantee but had chosen not to do so to make the claim fall within O. XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was urged further that the plaintiffs were secured creditors but had chosen to omit to mention the letters of hypothecation or the security since they wanted to take advantage of the provisions contained in O. XXXVII. It was strenuously urged that in the circumstances to permit amendment and thereby change the nature of the plaint would be unjust to the special circumstances in this case 10. Before indicating what the approach ought to be to an application of this nature, we may usefully refer to a number of authority to which Counsel invited our attention commencing with three cases of the Supreme Court in which earlier judgment both of this Court and of the Privy Council have been referred to.11. In (Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.)1, A.I.R 1957 S.C 357, it has been observed:"It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice." (Para 16)The Bench of the Supreme Court has thereafter referred to the Privy Council case of (Charan Das v. Amir Khan)2, (1970)47 Ind. App. 255 and (Kisan Das v. Rachappa)3, (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644.12. In the last mentioned decision of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming damages on the footing of conversion. This claim had been rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court which had allowed the Appeal from a decision of the Single judge of that High Court and dismissed the suit. In further Appeal to the Supreme Court, the rejection of the plaintiffs claim on the footing of conversion was upheld, but the plaintiffs applied to the Supreme Court for amendment of the plaint by raising in the alternative a claim for damages for breach of contract for non-delivery of the goods. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that justice of the case required that amendment should be granted. The amendment was allowed and the suit remanded for rehearing to the trial Court. The defendants were directed to file their Written Statement, after which the suit was directed to be tried a fresh and disposed of in accordance with law. The Supreme Court decision itself indicates that it was given in January, 1957 from the decision of the Appeal Court of this Court, which decision was given in June, 1952, so that obviously the claim on the amended basis was technically barred by the law of limitation and yet the Supreme Court decided that interests of justice required it to allow the said amendment.13. In (P.H. Patil v. K.S. Patil)4, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, the Supreme Court once again referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Charan Dass case and cited with approval a passage from the latter judgment which laid down that :"though there was full power to make the amendment, such a power should not as a rule be exercised where the effect was to take away from a defendant a legal right which had accrued to him by lapse of time; yet there were cases where such considerations were outweighed by the special circumstances of the case."In Patils case, the plaintiff had claimed possession in a suit filed in 1948 in which the plaintiff had relied on a decree obtained in an earlier suit filed in 1942 which had been confirmed in further Appeal. Apart from the facts pertaining to the earlier suit and the decree obtained therein, the plaintiff had not in the plaint explained his title. The defendant to the later suit was not a party to the earlier decree and this fact was brought out in the Written Statement where the plea taken was that the defendant was not bound by the decision in the previous suit, not being a party thereto, and that there were no facts set out in the plaint in the second suit to show how the plaintiff was entitled to any title or relief based on such title as against the defendant. In other words, the pleading of the defendant was that the plaint disclosed no cause of action as against him. This plea was upheld by the Civil Judge who dismissed the suit. When the matter was carried in Appeal to the High Court, the judges of the High Court allowed an amendment and permitted the details of title to be filed in although by this time the said defendant had acquired a valuable right viz., of pleading the bar of limitation against the plaintiff.14. In Patils case, the learned judges of the Supreme Court also referred to Kisan Das v. Rachappa, (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644 and passages from the Division Bench judgment in the said case and the facts have been elicited by the Supreme Court. In Kisan Dass case, the plaintiffs had claimed dissolution of partnership and accounts alleging that in pursuance of a partnership agreement they had delivered certain cloth to the defendant. The Subordinate Judge held that the delivery of cloth had been proved but came to the conclusion that the alleged partnership had not been proved. At the appellate stage the plaintiffs abandoned the plea of partnership and sought to recover the value of the cloth supplied and although on that date the monetary claim for value of the goods supplied was barred by limitation, the amendment was allowed. Such amendment was subsequently upheld by the High Court whose judgment was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Patils case. 15. Several judgments of the Bombay High Court of the Supreme Court and of the Privy Council pertaining to the question of amendments are seen fully considered once again by the Supreme Court in (A.K. Gupta & Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation)5, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96 and reference may usefully be made to observations to be found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the majority judgment. It has been observed in the former paragraph that although the general rule no doubt was that a party could not be allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a cause of action particularly when a suit on such new case or cause of action has become time barred, it was equally well recognised that where the amendment did not raise a new case but amounted to a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment must be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. In paragraph 3 it is observed further that the object of courts and rules of procedure was to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. Once again reference was made to Kisan Dass case and by the amendment allowed in the said case although technically distinct cause of action was sought to be explained by observing that the amendment could be said to have been in substance already in the pleading sought to be amended. In paragraph 9 the Supreme Court in Guptas case came to observe that the expression "new case" would have to be properly understood and it will be appropriate for the Court to reject an application for amendment which seems to introduce a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts.16. In Guptas case, the appellant before the Supreme Court had filed a suit claiming declaration as to proper interpretation of a clause in his contract with the defendant contending that on such interpretation the plaintiff was entitled to enhancement of 20 per cent over the standard rate. The points as to maintainability of the suit was raised in the Written Statement but was not pressed before the trial Court which upheld the interpretation sought for by the plaintiff. In appeal before the High Court of Patna, the issue as to maintainability of the suit was actively pursued and upheld. Hence the appeal was allowed and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The decision was obviously based upon the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The aggrieved plaintiff carried the matter further to the Supreme Court. Even before the High Court the appellant had sought to amend the plaint by adding a claim for money to the declaration sought, which application had been rejected. When the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court (by a majority) held that the High Court was in error in refusing the amendment. The amendment was directed to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for a rehearing of the appeal. In the minority judgment all the principal cases pertaining to the question of amendment have been exhaustively dealt with, but apart from those referred to earlier, we would like to cite only the observations made by the Privy Council in a case from Rangoon viz. (Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung)6, (1921)48 Ind. App. 214 at page 216 of the report, their Lordships of the Privy Council have made the following observations :- "All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendments must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised ..... "However, it was observed further that the subject matter of the suit cannot be permitted to be substituted. 17. The recital of authorities may be concluded by briefly referring to the approach commended in the case of (Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram)7, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484. The following observations are to be found in paragraph 2 of the judgment of Beg, C.J. speaking for the Bench:-"Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provision related to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met enable courts to determined what is really at issue between parties and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take". Similar is the approach to be found indicated in paragraph 4 which reads as under : "It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to cost and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situation resulting from amendments, are intending for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its Counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience of expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued."18. Based on the last mentioned judgment, it was contented by Mr. Chinai that the present case was one where there was a defective cause of action, which defect was sought to be cured by the amendment. On the other hand, Counsel on behalf of the respondents have been at pains to point out that defect could not be regarded as one made bona fide or through inadvertence but that it was a deliberate carse of actions adopted on legal advise by the plaintiffs whereby they sought to see advantage of provisions for a summary decision under the Code and under the Rules of High Court, which summary procedure would not have been available had all facts been properly indicated in the plaint initially.19. In our opinion, the point being considered by us does not strictly fit in with the facts indicated in any of the judgments which are cited at the bar. We will make the position clear. As the facts are now brought out, the claim is made by a nationalised Bank against four persons who were the Directors of Private Limited Company and who had guaranteed the amount borrowed by the said company form the Bank and signed various documents in favour of the Bank. The Company went into liquidation and the securities became non-existent and were not available to the Bank. No purpose would be served by the Company or its Liquidator. In the circumstances the Bank chose to file a money claim only against the Directors but based only on some of the documents executed by the defendants, viz., the promissory notes. It did not choose to indicate its pleading viz., the plaint, all the documents though the defendants were aware of them at all times and indeed have referred to them both in their affidavit in reply and in the Written Statement. 20. In 1982 a suit based on the letter of guarantee or against the defendants as guarantors would perhaps be barred by the law of limitation and this seems to be borne out by observation made in (Margaret Lalita Samuel v. indo commrl. Bank )8, (1979)2 S.C.C 396. However, apart from this plea the two points which are required to be considered according to us are (1) whether the case made by the plaintiffs is a totally new case based on a new set of ideas and (2) would the defendant be prejudice in their defence if these additional facts were allowed to be pleaded, in the sense that necessary evidence would not be available. 21. Apart from these aspects, we are faced with the facts that the plaintiffs had deliberately opted to file a suit on the promissory note and excluding the deed of hypothecation and the letters of continuity and guarantee to ensure that the same was within the parameters of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further even after the affidavit in reply were filed and unconditional leave to defend was generated in 1977, no amendment of the plaintiff was sought until 1982. No real explanations has been offered in Balans affidavit filed in March 1985 although it indicates that the frame of the suit and the maintenance of that frame despite submissions to the contrary were principally at the instance of the plaintiffs Advocate and his obduracy in maintaining that the pleading as it stood was a proper pleading.22. The defendants have not denied that a letter of hypothecation have been executed by the Company and its Directors or that letters of continuity and guaranted had been signed by all of them on 31st Januay, 1973. Subsequently we find that statements have been sent and acknowledged though these may not bring the claim within three years from 1982. Principally, however, what the plaintiffs have claimed in the plaint as it stands is a money decree against the defendants. The prayer is not sought to be altered, but what is sought is to give support to that prayer by additional documents and additional facts although it must be conceded that they were fully within the knowledge of the plaintiffs from the very beginning and the plaintiffs had deliberately on legal advise choose not to mention the same in the plaint. Does it make any difference We think not. If ineffectiveness or incompetence on the part of the pleader is to be forgiven then so must be obduracy and obstinacy. It must be fairly conceded, that we have before us a border-line case, but on the balance we are of opinion that interests of justice require that the amendment should not be allowed since, in our opinion this is not a case where the defendants cannot be compensated in terms of money. To insist that they must be protected by the law of limitation against the claim as now made on a proper basis would be to make a fetish of upholding procedural technicalities at the cost of substantial justice. 23. In other words we are inclined to allow the appeal through the amendment will have to be permitted on terms. 24. We have considered idea as to the proceedings taken in and after 1982. Even the appeal adjournments had to be taken to enable the appellants to explain the circumstances under which it took more than five years for making the application for amendment (after the order on the Summons for Judgment). We have also to consider the position and allegations made by the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 against the first defendant. Baring all these circumstances in mind and since we are now permitting introduction of additional facts to complete a defective cause of action we think fairly stringent terms may be imposed on the appellants.

Decision:
0[ds]19. In our opinion, the point being considered by us does not strictly fit in with the facts indicated in any of the judgments which are cited at the bar. We will make the position clear. As the facts are now brought out, the claim is made by a nationalised Bank against four persons who were the Directors of Private Limited Company and who had guaranteed the amount borrowed by the said company form the Bank and signed various documents in favour of the Bank. The Company went into liquidation and the securities becameand were not available to the Bank. No purpose would be served by the Company or its Liquidator. In the circumstances the Bank chose to file a money claim only against the Directors but based only on some of the documents executed by the defendants, viz., the promissory notes. It did not choose to indicate its pleading viz., the plaint, all the documents though the defendants were aware of them at all times and indeed have referred to them both in their affidavit in reply and in the Written Statement.In 1982 a suit based on the letter of guarantee or against the defendants as guarantors would perhaps be barred by the law of limitation and this seems to be borne out by observation made in (Margaret Lalita Samuel v. indo commrl. Bank )8, (1979)2 S.C.C 396. However, apart from this plea the two points which are required to be considered according to us are (1) whether the case made by the plaintiffs is a totally new case based on a new set of ideas and (2) would the defendant be prejudice in their defence if these additional facts were allowed to be pleaded, in the sense that necessary evidence would not be available.Apart from these aspects, we are faced with the facts that the plaintiffs had deliberately opted to file a suit on the promissory note and excluding the deed of hypothecation and the letters of continuity and guarantee to ensure that the same was within the parameters of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further even after the affidavit in reply were filed and unconditional leave to defend was generated in 1977, no amendment of the plaintiff was sought until 1982. No real explanations has been offered in Balans affidavit filed in March 1985 although it indicates that the frame of the suit and the maintenance of that frame despite submissions to the contrary were principally at the instance of the plaintiffs Advocate and his obduracy in maintaining that the pleading as it stood was a proper pleading.The defendants have not denied that a letter of hypothecation have been executed by the Company and its Directors or that letters of continuity and guaranted had been signed by all of them on 31st Januay, 1973. Subsequently we find that statements have been sent and acknowledged though these may not bring the claim within three years from 1982. Principally, however, what the plaintiffs have claimed in the plaint as it stands is a money decree against the defendants. The prayer is not sought to be altered, but what is sought is to give support to that prayer by additional documents and additional facts although it must be conceded that they were fully within the knowledge of the plaintiffs from the very beginning and the plaintiffs had deliberately on legal advise choose not to mention the same in the plaint. Does it make any difference We think not. If ineffectiveness or incompetence on the part of the pleader is to be forgiven then so must be obduracy and obstinacy. It must be fairly conceded, that we have before us acase, but on the balance we are of opinion that interests of justice require that the amendment should not be allowed since, in our opinion this is not a case where the defendants cannot be compensated in terms of money. To insist that they must be protected by the law of limitation against the claim as now made on a proper basis would be to make a fetish of upholding procedural technicalities at the cost of substantial justice.In other words we are inclined to allow the appeal through the amendment will have to be permitted on terms.We have considered idea as to the proceedings taken in and after 1982. Even the appeal adjournments had to be taken to enable the appellants to explain the circumstances under which it took more than five years for making the application for amendment (after the order on the Summons for Judgment). We have also to consider the position and allegations made by the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 34 against the first defendant. Baring all these circumstances in mind and since we are now permitting introduction of additional facts to complete a defective cause of action we think fairly stringent terms may be imposed on the appellants.