JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. INTERIM ORDER Present application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 13 of H.P. High Court Writ Jurisdiction Original Sides Rules 1997 and under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India for amendment of CWP No. 2805 of 2011 titled as M/s Sainsons Pulp and Papers Ltd. vs. State Bank of India and another. It is pleaded that applicants filed civil writ petition which is pending adjudication before the Court. It is pleaded that applicants have set up a papers making unit under the name and style of M/s Saisons Pulp Papers Ltd. at village Taliwal Nichala Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. with 200 TDP (Tone per day capacity) entailing a capital cost of Rs. 125/- crores. It is pleaded that non-applicant State Bank of India granted credit facility to the applicant in the following manner:- i) Term Loan-I Rs. 32.25 Crores ii) Term Loan-II Rs. 27.25 Crores iii) Term Loan-III Rs. 15.00 Crores iv) Cash Credit limit Rs. 15.00 Crores It is pleaded that apart from the above applicants company and its promoters had also invested an amount of Rs. 48.39 crores in setting up of the papers making unit at village Taliwal Nichala Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. It is further pleaded that papers unit at village Taliwal started its operation on dated 27.3.2010 and fire broke out on dated 11.12.2010 in the industrial unit due to electrical short circuiting causing damage to revinder machine, finished stock of papers, instruments cable, electrical cable, control cable etc. It is pleaded that despite fire incident and despite hampering of production applicants company had paid to the State Bank of India a sum of Rs. 408.00 lacs by way of installments and interest as of 31.12.2010. It is pleaded that after filing the writ petition subsequent development took place. It is pleaded that by way of amendment applicants intended to bring on record the subsequent events which took place after filing of writ petition till date. It is pleaded that proposed amendment will not change the nature of writ petition and bringing on record subsequent events are necessary for just and proper adjudication of civil writ petition and for deciding the controversy inter se the parties properly. It is pleaded that no prejudice will be caused to nonapplicants. Applicants sought following amendments. 2. It is pleaded that proposed amendment will not change the nature of writ petition and bringing on record subsequent events are necessary for just and proper adjudication of civil writ petition and for deciding the controversy inter se the parties properly. It is pleaded that no prejudice will be caused to nonapplicants. Applicants sought following amendments. 2. 112(a) That applicants vide letter dated 19.01.2013 submitted a one time settlement (OTS)/proposal to non-applicant No.1. Applicants submitted that they desire of settlement with the Bank and Financial Institution after due consideration of statutory liability and market scenario condition of the assets and distress realization value so that the unit can be made viable with the help of investors, who are ready and willing to provide fund to the applicants company for amicable realistic OTS and later on for re-starting the operation of the industrial unit. It is pleaded that applicants also submitted that in order to make the unit viable fresh investments will also be required and to restart the operation and up-gradation working capital of Rs. 2000 to 2500 lac is required. 3. 112(b) That applicants company was asked by non-applicant No. 1 vide letter dated 22.1.2013 to improve OTS offer and further pleaded that applicants company vide letter dated 4.5.2013 justified one time settlement submit vide letter dated 19.1.2013 to non-applicant No.1. That non-applicant No.1/State Bank of India vide letter dated 7.5.2013 intimated the applicants that OTS submitted was put before the competent authority for action. 4. 112(c) That applicants thereafter again vide letter dated 30.7.2013 again requested the non-applicant No.1 to consider the OTS keeping in view the financial position and realizable value of the assets of the applicants company. It is further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 vide letter dated 31.7.2013 intimated that the official of non-applicant No. 1 at Delhi have been asked to examine the “One time settlement” and they would respond to the applicants company directly. It is pleaded that however vide letter dated 26.8.2013 non-applicant No. 1 intimated that OTS was found not acceptable and it is further pleaded that applicants thereafter wrote letter dated 10.9.2013 requesting non-applicant No. 1 to allow applicants to meet its official for discussions on his proposal. It is pleaded that however vide letter dated 26.8.2013 non-applicant No. 1 intimated that OTS was found not acceptable and it is further pleaded that applicants thereafter wrote letter dated 10.9.2013 requesting non-applicant No. 1 to allow applicants to meet its official for discussions on his proposal. It is also pleaded that request of applicants was accepted and was conveyed vide mail dated 13.9.2013 and in the meeting with official of non-applicant No. 1 bank applicants asked the bank officers at Chandigarh to get the assets valued from the recognized valuer of the assets who are on the list of non-applicant No.1. 5. 112(d) That applicants thereafter again vide letter dated 11.10.2013 submitted to non-applicant No.1 to consider the OTS of the assets of applicants company by taking a practical view and vide letter dated 14.11.2013 applicants also requested non-applicant No.1 to provide list of valuer and further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 vide letter dated 16.11.2013 conveyed to the applicants that they have entrusted job of valuation of the property of applicants to M/s D.S. and Associates and applicants vide letter dated 16.12.2013 requested non-applicant bank to provide valuation report which would be done by M/S D.S. and Associates as conveyed vide letter dated 16.11.2013. 6. 112(e) That non-applicant No.1 bank got the valuation of assets and receipt of valuation conducted by M/s D.S. and Associates was submitted to the applicants and further pleaded that thereafter applicants immediately on the valuation which was done by M/s D.S. and Associates submitted to non-applicant No.1 OTS proposal of Rs.28.50 crores along with OTS schedule of payment. It is pleaded that non-applicant No.1 bank vide letter dated 4.11.2014 without personal hearing and giving an opportunity to the applicants to put forth their case of OTS in an unilateral and capricious manner submitted that OTS of Rs. 28.50 crores was too low and not acceptable. 7. 112(f) That it is submitted that the applicants had also asked non-applicant No.1 bank and its official to provide copy of latest valuation report vide letters dated 1.10.2014 and 3.10.2014 but no copies provided to applicants. It is pleaded that the applicants had submitted OTS on the basis of the valuation done by M/s D.S. and Associates and also justified OTS submitted by giving reasons for submitting Rs. 28.50 crores as one time settlement. It is pleaded that the applicants had submitted OTS on the basis of the valuation done by M/s D.S. and Associates and also justified OTS submitted by giving reasons for submitting Rs. 28.50 crores as one time settlement. It is pleaded that applicants thereafter again on 10.12.2014 submitted OTS by substantially enhancing the same to Rs.37.50 crores and also submitted therein that a buyer has approached the applicants on dated 7.12.2014 to buy the unit at village Taliwal and agricultural land at village Taliwal for Rs.31.25 crores. It is pleaded that reasons for substantial enhancing of OTS from Rs. 28.50 crores to Rs. 37.50 crores was also submitted on dated 10.12.2014. It is further pleaded that said revised proposal of Rs.37.50 crores which was submitted by applicants was also not considered and was rejected by non-applicant bank in an arbitrary and unilateral manner without giving an opportunity to the applicants to put forth their proposal in person. It is further pleaded that applicants are striving hard to revive the industrial unit and for the same have submitted OTS proposal and have approached various investors to invest in the papers making unit so that its operation could be started but hindrance was created by non-applicant No.1 bank every time whenever proposals were submitted for OTS and revival of applicants company. 8. 112(g) That applicants vide letters dated 28.11.2014, 3.12.2014, 25.12.2014 and 10.3.2015 has submitted application under Right to Information Act to non-applicant No. 1 bank-cum-Public Information Officer to provide the latest valuation report in respect of applicants company assets. It is pleaded that in spite of having written applications under Right to Information Act latest valuation report in respect of assets were not provided by non-applicant No.1 bank and it is further submitted that latest valuation report was not submitted to applicants company even in spite of submission of application under Right to Information Act but non-applicant No.1/bank in an application for early hearing filed before the Hon’ble Court clearly mentioned extract of latest valuation report of some of the property of the applicants company. It is pleaded that on the basis of extract of latest valuation report submitted by non-applicant No.1/bank revised OTS dated 10.12.2014 was submitted for Rs.37.50 crores and said OTS was also not considered in a just and proper manner and it was rejected vide letter dated 18.12.2014 by non-applicant No.1. It is pleaded that on the basis of extract of latest valuation report submitted by non-applicant No.1/bank revised OTS dated 10.12.2014 was submitted for Rs.37.50 crores and said OTS was also not considered in a just and proper manner and it was rejected vide letter dated 18.12.2014 by non-applicant No.1. It is pleaded that rejection of OTS submitted by applicants have been rejected without any basis and criteria and without looking into and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicants company and OTS has been rejected in contravention of guidelines of RBI which are binding on non-applicant No.1. 9. 112(h) That it is submitted that non-applicant No. 1 bank vide latest valuation report carried out fixed reserve price of assets, plant and machinery of the applicants unit at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una as Rs. 27.50 crores. It is pleaded that reserve price of House No. 1086 Sector 7 Panchkulla (Chandigarh) was not disclosed by non-applicant No. 1 bank in application filed for early hearing moved before the Hon’ble Court. It is further pleaded that applicants company since 2011 after industrial unit was closed down due to non-cooperative attitude of non-applicant No.1 bank and fire incident. It is pleaded that applicants deployed 10-12 guards every day and are also lightening the entire industrial premises as well as boundary by way of generators in order to ensure that there should be no theft in the industrial unit. It is further pleaded that assets, plant, machinery are installed in the industrial establishment of applicants company at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una and non-applicant No.1 bank till date even after assessing the reserve price has not bothered to make detailed inventory of assets, plant and machinery stores. It is further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 is instrumental in closing down of unit of applicants company at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una which was installed for manufacturing of papers and till date valuation of two properties i.e. House No. 1086 Sector-7 Panchkulla (Chandigarh) and agricultural land at Khangesra in the name of Ramesh Kumar Saini and Smt. Shashi Bala have not been provided. It is pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 bank on dated 29.12.2014 has provided the valuation report of the properties, assets but in respect of two properties still valuation report has not been provided. It is pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 bank on dated 29.12.2014 has provided the valuation report of the properties, assets but in respect of two properties still valuation report has not been provided. It is also pleaded that applicants company vide letter dated 20.3.2015 has also written letter to non-applicant No. 1 that they are spending nearly Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) every month in order to ensure that there should be no theft in the industrial unit and to keep secure the applicants company assets. 10. 112(i) That it is submitted that applicant have filed a reference before the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction at New Delhi under the provisions of Sick Industrial Company Special Provisions Act 1985 and said reference was registered as Reference No. 79 of 2013 (corrected as 79 of 2012 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record). It is pleaded that on dated 3.12.2014 (corrected as 3.11.2014 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record) BIFR deregistered the reference made by applicants company and applicants company against the BIFR order dated 3.12.2014 (corrected as 3.11.2014 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record) passed by BIFR in Reference No. 79 of 2012 on 3.12.2014 (corrected as 3.11.2014 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record) have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction New Delhi (AAIFR) and said appeal has been registered as AAIFR Appeal No. 13 of 2014 (corrected as 13 of 2015 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record). It is also pleaded that at present the issues regarding the applicants company being a Sick Industrial Company under the Sick Industrial Special Provisions Act is pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction New Delhi and if the appeal is allowed and order of BIFR dated 3.12.2014 (corrected as 3.11.2014 taking judicial notice on the basis of record placed on record) de-registering the reference will be set aside and the applicant will stand automatically registered in BIFR and provisions of Sick Industrial Company Special Provisions Act would have an overriding effect. It is pleaded that notices in appeal have been issued and is now listed on dated 27.5.2015. 11. It is pleaded that notices in appeal have been issued and is now listed on dated 27.5.2015. 11. 112(j) That non-applicant No.1 bank has filed an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Chandigarh and applicants company has also filed a suit for recovery/counter claim against non-applicant bank. It is also pleaded that said suit/counter claim are also pending for adjudication and present writ petition was filed prior to the filing of suit and counter claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also pleaded that appeal against the order of BIFR stand filed and notices have been issued to the non-applicant bank and if appeal is allowed then applicants company will be registered under BIFR. It is pleaded that order of BIFR deregistering the applicants company will have no force and applicants on registration in BIFR all proceedings will be abided as per provisions of Sick Industrial Special Provisions Act and non-applicant bank are harassing the applicants company by threatening them that they would sell the residential house situated at House No. 1086, Panchkulla, Chandigarh without even prior proceedings towards realization of the value of Industrial establishment i.e. paper unit at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. which is primary security and non-applicant bank wants to make applicant No. 2 homeless and without any shelter. 12. 112(k) That it is submitted that applicants company still wants to revive its industrial establishment at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. and applicants company has buyer and even investors who are ready and willing to buy and run the industrial establishment unit at village Taliwal Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. provided non-applicant bank sits with open and listen to the problem of the applicants company and extended hands towards finalizing of OTS on the basis of realistic distress value of the assets and Rs. 48.39 crores has also been invested by promoters of the applicants company and promoters money have also gone down on account of act conduct and deed and non- cooperative attitude and malafide intention of non-applicant No.1 bank. 13. 112(l) That act, conduct of non-applicant No.1 bank is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and the Tandon Core Committee Report and Reserve Bank of India Guidelines has not been followed and in the month of December 2010 the term loan accounts/cash credit limits were regular and applicants company was not in default. 13. 112(l) That act, conduct of non-applicant No.1 bank is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and the Tandon Core Committee Report and Reserve Bank of India Guidelines has not been followed and in the month of December 2010 the term loan accounts/cash credit limits were regular and applicants company was not in default. It is pleaded that applicants company had paid Rs. 408 lac as on 31.12.2010 and in spite of all these things non-applicant No. 1 bank rather than extending a helping hand to the applicants company for its revival in fact by not releasing the sanctioned limits of loan and cash credit limit ensured that industrial establishment should close down. It is further pleaded that in fact non-applicant No. 1 bank, its officials are responsible for closing down of industrial establishment of applicants and the unit operated for barely about nine months and non-applicant No.1 started demanding exorbitant repayments. 14. Applicants also sought following amendments in relief clause. E(i) Direct respondent No. 1 bank to reconsider the one time settlement proposal on realistic base and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicants company to put forth their case for OTS. 15. E(ii) Quash and set aside letter dated 18.12.2014 whereby rejected OTS proposal. 16. E(iii) Direct the respondent bank to allow the applicant to bring a better buyer in respect of the properties/assets and also in respect of the properties not mentioned in Annexure P-47. 17. E(iv) Direct respondent No. 1 bank to bear expenses of security guards, generators being run at the industrial premises at village Taliwal, Tehsil Haroli District Una H.P. amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 per month in view of the facts that symbolic possession under SARFASI has already been taken by respondent No.1 bank. 18. E(v) To direct respondent No.1 bank to provide the guidelines for submitting of one time settlement as applicable to it and to follow these guidelines. 19. E(vi) Direct respondent No. 1 not to take any further action for recovery till the decision of proceedings pending before AIFR. 20. E(vii) In alternative respondent No. 1 may be directed to proceed against the principal security i.e. land, building and factory premises at the first instance. 21. Per contra reply filed on behalf of non-applicant bank pleaded therein that present amendment application filed with a view to delay the decision of civil writ petition. 20. E(vii) In alternative respondent No. 1 may be directed to proceed against the principal security i.e. land, building and factory premises at the first instance. 21. Per contra reply filed on behalf of non-applicant bank pleaded therein that present amendment application filed with a view to delay the decision of civil writ petition. It is pleaded that applicants have violated the financial discipline of the bank and did not adhere to the payments schedule. It is pleaded that unit is not functioning. It is pleaded that power of unit was cut off in February 2011 by H.P. State Electricity Board for non-payment of dues to the tune of Rs. 64 lacs and a sum of Rs. 101,69,57,370/- were due from applicants to the bank as on dated 27.5.2011. It is pleaded that notice dated 28.5.2011 was issued to the applicants under Section 13 (2) of SARFESI Act and applicants are not legally entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Court as alternative efficacious and speedy remedy is available to the applicants to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Act. It is pleaded that OA No. 124 of 2012 for recovery of Rs.1161527277.95 was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (I) Chandigarh on dated 29.12.2012 and proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. It is pleaded that an amount of Rs.179,59,40,719.80 was due in March 2015 from applicants company and presently an amount of Rs. 179,67,14,362.38 is due on dated 30.4.2015. It is pleaded that after adjusting the sale proceeds of properties sold in village Baltana Zirakpur namely one commercial shop sold for Rs. 21 lacs and second property namely residential house sold for Rs. 51 lacs on dated 14.3.2015 and properties were auctioned on dated 14.3.2015 and pursuant thereto the sale certificate was issued in favour of auction purchaser after receipt of the entire auction money. It is pleaded that applicants resisted the taking over the factory in village Talhiwal on dated 19.1.2015 with help of local sympathizers including ladies and further pleaded that huge outstanding amount against the applicants could only be recovered by sale of residential house in Panchkulla and factory, land, building including plant and machinery situated at Tahliwal which too would be insufficient to satisfy the amount outstanding to non-applicant bank. It is further pleaded that disputed facts are involved and thereafter one time settlement request has been turned down. It is pleaded that amount due could only be recovered by way of sale of properties of applicants including residential house. It is pleaded that applicants are not entitled for amendment in writ petition. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 22. Applicants also filed rejoinder pleaded therein that applicants intended to bring on records subsequent events which are essential for resolving the real controversy intere se the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is pleaded that outcome of entire proceedings would depend upon the ultimate order which would be passed by appellate authority under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act 1985. It is pleaded that non-applicant bank is not adhering to the guidelines and principles laid down by Reserve Bank of India for one time settlement and non-applicant bank cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own act omission and commission. It is pleaded that proceedings are pending before appellate authority under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act 1985. 23. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 24. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 1. Whether application filed under Order 6 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 13 of H.P. High Court Writ Jurisdiction Original Sides Rules 1987 and under Article 226(1) of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as per grounds mentioned in application? 2. Final Order. Findings on point No.1 25. It was held in case reported in 2012(10 JT SC 97 titled Abdul Rehman vs. Mohd. Ruldu that Court should allow all amendments which would be necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties provided that amendment should not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposite party. Following principles should be followed in dealing with application for amendment of pleadings. (1) That all amendments will be generally permissible when they are necessary for determining the real controversy inter se the parties. (2) That party cannot be allowed to change the subject matter of controversy. (3) That inconsistent and contradictory amendments should not be permitted. (4) That amendment should not cause prejudice to other side which could not be compensated in terms of costs. (2) That party cannot be allowed to change the subject matter of controversy. (3) That inconsistent and contradictory amendments should not be permitted. (4) That amendment should not cause prejudice to other side which could not be compensated in terms of costs. (5) That amendment which is barred by law should not be allowed. The power of amendment is granted to Court in larger interest and to give full justice to parties. (See AIR 1978 SC 484 titled M/s Ganesh Trading Co. vs. Moji Ram) Since proposed amendment is just explanation of subsequent events Court is of the opinion that proposed amendment is essential in order to dispose of civil writ petition properly and effectively and to impart substantial justice inter se parties. 26. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-applicants that present application has been filed with mala fide intention to delay the disposal of civil writ petition and on this ground application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that opportunity to file reply to proposed amendment will be granted to non-applicants and Court is of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to non-applicants if proposed amendment is allowed as proposed amendment is only explainary in nature relating to subsequent events. Court is also of the opinion that non-applicant can be compensated with heavy costs for filing the proposed amendment at the belated stage. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 27. In view of above stated CMP No. 5525 of 2015 is allowed and proposed amendments as sought in CMP No. 5525 of 2015 are allowed in the ends of justice. Costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) also imposed which will be paid to non-applicant No. 1 i.e. State Bank of India. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of civil writ petition in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of CMP No. 5525 of 2015. CMP is disposed of.