Civil Revision No. 1801 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1801 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.4.2010 Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi .. Petitioner v. Punjab & Sind Bank and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. J. J. Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 2. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-Punjab & Sind Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 74,282/- impleading Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner as defendants. In the written statement filed by the petitioner initially, the stand was taken that the amount, which was paid to the petitioner for booking of vehicle was returned after cancellation thereof through their dealer M/s Saini Motors, Jalandhar for onward transmission to respondent No. 1. Warrant numbers were also mentioned in the written statement initially filed. When the evidence of the petitioner was to be led, application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed to take the plea that the amount in question was not refunded to defendant No. 1 in the suit, namely, Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. but to M/s PKF Finance Ltd. through M/s Saini Motors, Jalandhar. The application having been rejected, the petitioner-defendant is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s PKF Finance Ltd. are sister concerns, as the persons controlling them are family members. The error in the stand taken in the written statement initially filed was bonafide as instead of mentioning the name, to whom the refund was directed through M/s Saini Motors, Jalandhar, only defendant No. 1 was mentioned. All what is required to be pleaded now in the amended written Civil Revision No. 1801 of 2009 [2] statement is that the amount was refunded to M/s PKF Finance Ltd., who had booked the vehicle through M/s Saini Motors, Jalandhar. The voucher numbers, dates and other details mentioned in the written statement filed will remain the same. The amendment will not prejudice either of the party and will not change the nature of the case, as the defence of the petitioner will remain the same. There was delay in filing the application for the reason that the error came to the notice of the petitioner only when the affidavit was being prepared for the purpose of leading its evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the amendment sought to be made by the petitioner at this stage is not bonafide. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s PKF Finance Ltd. are separate legal entities. The pleadings, which are sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of the written statement were well within the knowledge of the petitioner, when the written statement was originally filed. On account of lapse, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the same at this belated stage. The suit filed way back in September, 1997 is still pending. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. This court is not opining on the issue as to whether Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. and M/s PKF Finance Ltd. are sister concerns or not. However, still the fact remains that the only error committed in the written statement already filed is regarding mentioning of the fact that the amount in question was refunded by the petitioner to Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. through Saini Motors, Jalandhar. There is no dispute regarding the details about booking and refund voucher numbers, as mentioned in the written statement. The same is only required to be amended to plead that the amount was refunded through Saini Motors, Jalandhar to M/s PKF Finance Ltd. as against Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. This, in my opinion, will not change the nature of the case as such and the error being bonafide, the petitioner deserves to be granted liberty to amend the written statement to that effect. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement is accepted. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.4.2010/mk Civil Revision No. 1801 of 2009 [3] mk