( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Orderdated 23-12-2004 made in IAG R No. 3530 of 2004 in cross-objections in A. S. No. 81 of 2004 on the file of the learned i Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the 1st respondent in the above appeal and plaintiff in O. S. No. 126 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil judge, Amudalavalasa. Respondent No. 1 herein is the appellant in the above appeal and 2nd defendant in the suit. Respondent No. 2 is the 2nd respondent in the appeal and 1st defendant in the suit. The parties are here in after referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff (petitioner herein) laid a suit for recovery of certain amount on the foot of a promissory note. The suit was decreed as against the 2nd defendant and was dismissed as against the 1st defendant, father of the 2nd defendant, on the ground that his signature was forged. Defendant No. 2 carried the matter in appeal being A. S. No. 81 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, srikakulam being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree made in O. S. No. 126 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, amudalavalasa. Defendant No. 1 against whom the suit was dismissed was also made a proforma party i. e. respondent No. 2, in the appeal. After receipt of notice in the appeal, the plaintiff filled cross-objections to the extent of denial of his claim forcosts while decreeing the suit. However, there after he filed the present IAGR No. 3530 of 2004 purported to be underordervi Rule 17of the Civil Procedure code seeking amendment of cross-objections already filed. In this petition, altogether a different ground has been raised, i. e. to allow the cross-objections by setting aside the dismissal of the suit as against the 1st defendant, who is the 2nd respondent in the appeal. Here, it may be necessary to notice thatthe plaintiff has notfiled any independent appeal insofar as dismissing the suit against the 1 st defendant is concerned.

( 4 ) THE said application was resisted by the defendants and after hearing both the parties, the lower appellate Court rejected the same on 19-4-2005 by the following Order:"head the petitioner s counsel. Perused the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, (1) al R1925 Calcutta 975 (Bhuban Mohan v. Co-operative Bank) and (2) AIR 1934 calcutta 346 (Sudhansudhar v. Sasadhar ). The facts of the present case are not similarto the facts in the above reported cases. As such, I am of the view that both the above citations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Originally, in the cross-objections, the petitioner/plaintiff sought for costs of the suit only. But now by way of amendment, he is seeking the relief of decree against the 1st defendant, against whom the lower Court dismissed the suit. So, the petitioner, by way of this amendment, wants to change the nature of his cross objections, which goes to the very root of the cross-objections, which is not at all the real controversy between the parties. Hence, I hold that it is not just and proper to allow the petitioner to change the very nature of his cross objections by way of amendment now sought for. "

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present civil Revision Petition is filed.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the proposed amendment to incorporate the prayertogrant the decree against the 1st defendant (2nd respondent in appeal) will not change the nature of cross-objections. The proposed amendment is only an additional plea raised by the petitioner in his cross-objections by paying the necessary Court fee and it cannot be equated with the amendment of the plaint or written statement and thereby holding that it would change the nature of the cross objections, especially when it will not, in any circumstances, be contrary to the original plea taken in the cross-o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document