1. Heard both the counsel.

2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.10.2010 passed by the court of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagital in I.A.No.1078/2010 in O.S.No.9/2004, in rejecting the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., the present revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.9/2004 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.9.1985. The trial of the suit is concluded and the matter is post for judgment. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed the present application seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. stating that as a result of typographical error, the plea, ‘that they have been and are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement of sale dated 27.9.1985 and that they are ready with balance amount as per the agreement,’ could not be taken despite exercise of due diligence and, therefore, sought to allow the said amendment of plaint.

4. The defendants filed counter affidavit and stated that after the arguments of both the sides was completed on 20.9.2010 and written arguments were filed on their behalf on the same day and wherein they pointed out that the pleadings of the plaintiff is not as per the requirement of Section 16 ( c ) of Specific Relief Act and Form no.47 Appendix-A of C.P.C. and so, on 24.9.2010 the present petition was filed seeking amendment to incorporate the plea the they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It is further contended that the proposed amendment will take the suit back to the stage of filling written statement and it would also cause prejudice and harassment. With these averments, the I.A. was sought to be dismissed.

5. Considering the above contentions, the court below held that the present amendment sought is not an typographical error and by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are seeking to add a separate paragraph and if the said amendment is allowed, it amounts to permitting a new plea and further the plaintiffs have filed the present petition for amendment, when the defendants have taken a specific ground that the plaint is not in compliance of the provisions of Section 16( c ) of the Specific Relief Act and if the present amendment is allowed, which is sought after completion of entire trial and when the matter is posted for judgment, it would amount to causing serious prejudice to the defence taken by the defendants. Hence, the court below dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the present amendment which is sought to incorporate the plea of readiness and willingness to perform the part of the plaintiffs and that they are ready with the balance amount, does not amount to introducing a new cause of action and their specific non-mention in the plaint is due to accidental slip or a typographical error. In fact, the plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 has categorically deposed about his readiness and willing to perform him part of contract and the legal notices issued prior to filing of the suit also establish the same. Further, the defendants also had opportunity to cross-examine on this aspect. Therefore, as the defendants had ample opportunity, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to them by allowing the present amendment. He further contended that these facts go to show that the plaintiffs’ failure to take the specific plea as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act is despite diligence on their part and in view of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of C.P.C., the court below ought to have allowed the amendment.

7. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in GAJANAN J.JOSHI v. PRABHAKAR M.KALWAR (1990)1 SCC 166, he contended that by the present amendment, the plaintiffs wants to complete the cause of action for specific perf