IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7129 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.12.2010 Gurbax Kaur @ Baksho and others .... Petitioners Versus M/s. Virk Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Rajbir Wasu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondents ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Defendants-petitioners sought amendment in the written statement to take following legal pleas:- “7. That the plaintiff is working as a money lender without any valid licence as required under the law, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. That Sh. Santokh Singh original mortgagor was an agriculturist and so are his legal heirs i.e. defendants. The loan in question was obtained for agriculture purposes. Sh. Santokh Singh since deceased and his legal heirs, the defendants are also agriculturist and solely depend on the suit land, as such interest on such loan can not be charged more than 6% p.a. whereas the plaintiff has charged interest at the rate of 30% p.a. The Rule of Dam Daput is also attracted in this case as per the Rule the plaintiff cannot claim more than the double amount of the original loan, as such the suit is liable to be C.R. No. 7129 of 2010 2 dismissed. 9. That deceased Santokh Singh was and his legal heirs are Sikhs (Hindu) by religion and governed by Hindu Law for the purpose of inheritance and alienation. The above said Santokh Singh and his legal heirs are coparceners and members of the Joint Hindu Family. The suit land is coparcenary Joint Hindu Family property of the above said Santokh Singh and the defendants Sh. Santokh Singh has inherited the suit land from his forefathers Sh. Santokh Singh has never sought permission or consent of the defendants to get the loan in question. Neither the loan was required nor he has spent the loan amount on the welfare and legal necessity of the joint Hindu penalty, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.” In the opinion of this Court, legal plea ordinarily should be allowed to be taken by way of amendment. In the opinion of this Court, no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiffs-respondents, if amendment is allowed. Petition is allowed. Amendment application also stands allowed. Petitioners shall pay ` 5000/- as costs to the plaintiffs within 15 days. Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to file replication to the amended portion within 15 days from today. (ALOK SINGH) 08.12.2010 JUDGE reena