IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.78 of 2010. Decided on: March 26, 2010 M/s Kaushal Electronics ….. Petitioner. Versus State Bank of India and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is the plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was dismissed. The suit is one for money filed by the Bank. According to the petitioner, the suit is not maintainable since two distinct reliefs have been joined in one plaint. There is also a contention that there is no statement of account. On going through the impugned order, both these contentions have been considered by the trial Court and it has been held that no prejudice as such would be caused to the petitioner even if the suit is not amended since the interest and the relief otherwise sought by way of amendment can be otherwise safeguarded. Since the Court has succinctly given the reasons in that regard at the last paragraph of the 2 impugned order, it will be appropriate to reproduce the same, which reads as follows: “Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery against the defendants. The defendants have filed the application for amendment in the written statement on two accounts that plaintiff has filed this suit on different cause of action. Secondly, the statement of the accounts is not paid. So far as the first point is concerned then the two issues stands framed that, whether the suit is not maintainable, further the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The plea sought to be introduced by way of amendment stands already covered under both these issues, therefore, the amendment is not necessary because the same plea as alleged by the applicant under Section 6 rule 17 C.P.C. can be taken at the time of arguments under Issues numbers 3 and 4. So far as the second reason for amendment is that the defendant has not supplied the statement of accounts, whereas the applicant/defendant has deposited the same amount. Although the defendants have placed on record the documents Ext. P-19 and P-20 showing the amount paid by the defendants. In the interest of justice the applicant/defendants are at liberty to place on record all the receipts of amount which the applicant/defendants have deposited with the bank so that the same amount if paid can be deducted in the suit of plaintiff succeeds. Therefore, the present application is considered and dismissed. The application accordingly stands disposed of and after due completion be tagged with the main case file.” In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed. March 26, 2010 (Justice Kurian Joseph), (rks) Chief Justice 3