1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3067 OF 2010 Central Bank of India ...Petitioner vs. Pandit Rupla Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms Sapana Rahare i/b M/s.T.N.Tripathi & Co. for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 20, 2010 P.C.: 1 The petitioner is the 3 rd defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent. The suit was filed on 10 th February 2010. Before commencement of the trial, on 11 th September 2009, an application for amendment of the plaint was made by the first respondent for incorporating the additional reliefs on the ground that the bank guarantee amount has been released by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. By the impugned order in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the application for amendment has been allowed. 2 On the basis of the request made by the first respondent, a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.72,50,000/- was issued by the petitioner-bank in favour of the 3 rd respondent (2 nd defendant). The bank guarantee was extended from time to time. The suit is filed by the first respondent on the allegation that the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents (2 nd and 3 rd defendants) have committed breach of contract and they were not entitled to encash the bank guarantee. During the pendency of the suit, the bank guarantee was invoked by the 3 rd respondent. 2 Accordingly, the amount payable under the bank guarantee was released by the petitioner on 30 th March 2009. 3 By the proposed amendment, the 1 st respondent wants to add paragraph 18-A for incorporating the fact that during pendnecy of the suit, the amount of bank guarantee has been released by the petitioner. Paragraph 18-B is sought to be added for contending that the bank guarantee was illegally invoked. A prayer is made for deleting the prayers (b) and (c) on the ground that the same have become infructuous. A declaration is sought to be claimed that the action of the petitioner of making payment of the amount payable under the bank guarantee without knowledge of the first respondent is unlawful and illegal. Lastly, a prayer is made for grant of permission for incorporating a relief of compensation of Rs.1 crore. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as proposed prayers are concerned, no averments are sought to be added for pleading the cause of action for claiming reliefs. He submitted that an altogether new relief of decree for payment of compensation is sought to be added without there being any foundation in the pleadings. He invited my attention to the finding recorded by the trial Court. He submitted that before a joinder of new cause of action is permitted, the Court has to ensure that the said cause of action is pleaded and in the present case there is no pleading. 5 I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the application for amendment has been made before the commencement of the trial. The amendment is based on the subsequent event of release of the bank guarantee 3 amount by the petitioner. Reliefs are sought to be claimed on the basis of the said subsequent event. Even if amendment is allowed, all defences of the petitioner will remain open. In fact, the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. No fault can be found with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is accordingly rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner on merits are kept open which can be agitated by filing additional written statement. If additional written statement is not yet filed, it will be open for the petitioner to do so within a period of eight weeks from today. JUDGE