C.R. No. 1329 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1329 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2009 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kulwinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jagmeet Moudgill, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No. 2, despite service. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 20, 2007, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the suit was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 from interfering into the possession of the bus bearing No. PB 13-N-0591. The bus was purchased by the petitioner from respondent No.1 which was hypothecated with respondent No.2/Bank. In the written statement filed by the Bank, a plea was taken that no injunction can be granted in favour of the petitioner as certain amount was still due against the bus and to recover the same they could very well take possession of the bus. Immediately after filing of written statement by respondent No.2-Bank, the petitioner vide various receipts from January 31, 2006 till July 18, 2006 paid the amount of loan to the Bank which according to the petitioner settles the entire claim of the Bank. Immediately after payment of amount an application for amendment was filed seeking additional relief for mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.2 to issue no due certificate in the loan account of Bus No.PB 13-N-0591, as the entire amount of loan had already been paid. Corresponding to the prayer pleadings were also sought to be amended regarding payment of amount. The application having been rejected, the order is impugned before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cause of action to file the application for amendment of the plaint arose to the petitioner during the pendency of suit as immediately after filing of written statement by the Bank and C.R. No. 1329 of 2007 (O&M) 2 having come to know about the amount due to the Bank, the amount was immediately cleared. After clearance of loan the petitioner had a right to get no due certificate issued in his favour and get the entry of hypothecation on the registration certificate deleted. However, even innocuous prayer made by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court with the observation that the prayer, if granted, would change the nature of suit. He further stated that the suit was at a very initial stage as only written statement has been filed and immediately thereafter the petitioner started paying the amount and within six months of filing of written statement by respondent No.2 Bank an application for amendment of the plaint was filed. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not have any objection to the amendment of the plaint being allowed. As far as respondent No.2 is concerned, the conduct of the Bank needs to be depreciated. After completion of service the Bank was represented by Mr.Gurinderjit Singh Advocate. However, on January 16, 2009, it was stated by him that he has no more instructions to appear for respondent No. 2 Bank as the Bank had taken the brief from him. Considering the fact that respondent No.2 may not be depreciated unheard fresh notice was directed to be issued and it was further directed that the Manager of the respondent-Bank to appear in person in Court on the next date of hearing. As per office report, service of respondent No.2 Bank is complete through its counsel in the trial Court. However, still neither any counsel has appeared for the Bank nor the Manager of the Bank has appeared. To avoid delay in disposal of the petition and the suit as well, I deem it appropriate to decide the petition finally as the service of the respondents is complete. As far as the claim of the petitioner regarding amendment of the plaint is concerned in view of the aforesaid factual position, in my opinion, a case for amendment of the plaint was clearly made out as all what the petitioner claimed was only for issuance of no due certificate after having cleared the loan advanced by the respondent No.2 Bank, as was stated by it in the written statement filed by it. The suit was initially filed by the petitioner for injunction. Learned court below had gone wrong in opining that the amendment would changed the nature of suit as it was a cause of action which had arisen to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit,. Still further respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has no objection to the amendment and further no one has appeared for respondent No.2 to object to the prayer of the petitioner being granted. Accordingly, as far as present revision petition is concerned, the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the amendment application filed by the petitioner is accepted. C.R. No. 1329 of 2007 (O&M) 3 Considering the conduct of respondent No.2, I would be failing in my duty if I do not proceed against Manager of the Bank. In terms of the order passed on January 16, 2009 as is already noticed above, the service of respondent No.2 is complete. But inspite of the fact that the case was passed over twice neither the Manager of the bank has appeared nor any counsel has appeared for the respondent No.2. The conduct of respondent No.2 is clearly contemptuous. Let bailable warrants be issued to Manager of respondent No.2 Bank for March 23, 2009 to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Court be not initiated against him for disobeying the order passed by this Court. The present Civil Revision petition shall be deemed to be disposed of and a new number as COCP will be registered and the matter may be placed before the appropriate Bench as per roster. (RAJESH BINDAL) 4.2.2009 JUDGE Reema