1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 430/2007 M/s. Shreeji Electronics through its Proprietor ..vs.. The Western Washim Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Washim Branch and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 7 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Bhattad, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mohta, Advocate holding for Mr. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. 2. Respondent No. 1 is the disputant in the dispute filed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, before the Co-operative Court, Amravati. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the borrower and guarantor respectively. The dispute is for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,73,772.62/- (Rs. Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Sixty Two Paise Only). 3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application at Exh.-13 in the above said dispute for the amendment in para 2 of the dispute. By this amendment, respondent No. 1 alleged that 2 the petitioner applied for the loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) and the same was sanctioned in the meeting dated 13.07.1996. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the petitioner applied for the renewal and enhancement of loan up to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Only) and accordingly the same was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 in the meeting dated 31.07.1998. According to respondent No. 1, the above said fact remained to be mentioned in the dispute due to oversight and by the amendment, the respondent No. 1 wanted to clarify this aspect to avoid confusion, complication and ambiguity. The learned Co-Operative Court, Amravati allowed this amendment after holding that the amendment is consistent with the original claim and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner challenged this order by filing revision before the Co-operative Appellate Court at Nagpur. The learned Member of the Co-Operative Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Judge, Co-operative Court with some modification and being aggrieved by that order, the 3 present petition is being filed. 5. The Courts below concurrently held that the amendment sought by respondent No. 1 is consistent with the original pleadings and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The amendment will not change the nature of the dispute and in my opinion the same is necessitated to avoid confusion and complication. The amendment, in no way, can be termed as malafide. 6. Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner, lastly submitted that the trial Court has gone into the merits of the amendment unnecessarily and this order is already confirmed by the appellate Court. In my view, it is settled principle of law that merits of the amendment cannot be gone into while considering the amendment application. The Co-Operative Court, therefore, shall decide the dispute of respondent No. 1 independently and without being influenced by the order impugned in the present petition. 7. Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage submitted that the petitioner also was granted 4 permission to amend his pleadings consequentially but the said permission he could not be availed in view of the pendency of this writ petition. He further submits that 4 weeks time may be granted to effect the consequential amendment in his pleadings. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if four weeks time is granted. In view of above, the petitioner is granted four weeks time from today to carry out consequential amendment. 8. In the light of above observations, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition subject to above is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale