The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings are allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and that a liberal approach should be adopted to permit amendments to sub-serve the cause of justice and uphold substantive rights.

ORDER :

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the defendants is directed against the orders, dated 18.09.2018, allowing IA.No.516 of 2018 in OS.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice to amend the word ‘defendant’ paragraphs (a) & (b) of third page of the plaint as ‘defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally’.

2. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 2 & 3 and Sri Sudha Madhuri Govindu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of the loan amount. The 1st defendant is the borrower and defendants 2 & 3 are the guarantors and the suit was initially filed by their panel advocate, Sri V. Prabhakara Rao, who died recently. At the time of filing of the suit, due to typographical mistake, i.e., instead of mentioning ‘defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally’, in the prayer portion in paragraphs (a) and (b) in page No.3 of the plaint, it is wrongly mentioned as ‘defendant’. Hence, the present petition seeking amendment.

(b) The respondents/defendants 2 & 3 filed counter opposing the petition and contending as follows: The petitioner filed the instant petition suppressing the true material facts in order to mislead the court. The defendant No.1 is a necessary party, and as such, notice to the defendant No.1 is very much essential and in the absence of notice to the 1st defendant, the present petition cannot be decided. The 1st defendant is a principal borrower. The petitioner failed to seek consequential amendments. The 1st defendant, in collusion with the 1st respondent/plaintiff, intentionally filed the petition. The proposed amendment is not a typographical mistake and it is an afterthought at the last stage of trial. The petition is intended to drag on the proceedings. The petition is not maintainable as it changes the nature of the suit. Defendant No.3 adduced his evidence as DW1. Defendant No.2 got filed his chief examination affidavit and the suit is posted for cross-examination of DW2. The petitioner failed to mention specific reasons why the proposed amendment was not sought at the earliest point of time. There is lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner. The petition is not maintainable. Amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed when it materially alters or substitutes the cause of action or the nature of the claim. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. At the time of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side.

5. On merits, the trial Court allowed the petition of the plaintiff. Therefore, the aggrieved defendants 2 & 3 are before this Court.

6. The revision petitioners/defendants 2 & 3, while reiterating their pleaded case further urged as follows:

The proposed amendment substantially changes the nature of the suit and it is against the object and spirit of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The proposed amendment cannot be permitted after commencement of trial. The plaintiff willfully omitted the relief against defendants 2 & 3 at the time of filing of the suit. The amendment proposed is an afterthought. No notice was issued to the 1st defendant who is the principal borrower before seeking amendment. The 1st defendant is in active collusion with the plaintiff bank. Amendment cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae or omissions in the case pleaded by the parties.

7. Now the points for determination are –

Whether the plaintiff is not entitled under facts and in law to seek the amendment of the prayer in the plaint as prayed for? And, if so, whether th