- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5084 WP No. 107354 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 107354 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: UNION BANK OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE, CONSTITUTED UNDER BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, V OF 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MUMBAI AND A BRANCH OFFICE AMOUNT OTHER PLACES AT SHAHAPUR BRANCH, BELAGAVI, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (PRESENT) NAMELY, SRI. MADAN POL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH S.HULMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SHEETAL KANHAIYALAL MUNDADA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: #728, NARVEKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590 003. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5084 WP No. 107354 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Girish S.Hulmani., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh S.Hiremath., counsel for the respondent appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi on I.A. No.III in Comm. OS No.101/2022 vide Annexure-E. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The Bank filed a commercial suit for recovery of money against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,05,126/- on the averments that the defendant had availed the financial assistance on 20.01.2021 under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Scheme for setting up an Incense Sticks manufacturing business to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/-. The defendant appeared through his counsel, filed her written statement, and denied the plaint averments. The Bank applied applied I.A. No.III under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint regarding - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5084 WP No. 107354 of 2024 the nature of the loan availed by substituting the nomenclature of the loan as ‘Term Loan’ instead of ‘Cash Credit and CC’. The defendant filed objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 rejected the application. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the Writ Petition. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Sri. Girish S.Hulmani., submits that the Court has erred in rejecting the application. Next, he submits that the amendment was sought by substituting the nomenclature of the loan as ‘Term Loan’ instead of ‘Cash Credit and CC’. A further submission is made that the Court failed to consider that the proposed amendment may not introduce a different or a new case. There was no inconsistency between the plaint and the proposed amendment. He vehemently contended that due to oversight, a mistake had crept in and hence the Bank has taken necessary steps to rectify the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5084 WP No. 107354 of 2024 mistake; the rejection of the application leads to a multiplicity of proceedings. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order is unsustainable in law and therefore, submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. Counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the Commercial Court. He submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the amendment application. It is significant to note that one Mr.Akash Ghatti, Senior Manager was examined as PW1. Then, the Bank came up with an application to seek an amendment. It is pivotal to note that in the plaint, the Bank has averred that the suit loan was transacted in the cash credit account of the defendant. If that be so, substituting the word for ‘Term Loan’ would entirely - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5084 WP No. 107354 of 2024 change the nature of the transaction and would give to a new case. Moreover, the Bank is before the Court for recovery of money, it ought to have taken precautions in drafting the plaint. The Commercial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. In my view, the same does not require any interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 70