The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal approach in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this batch of revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the impugned order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Morigaon, deciding the 2 petitions namely the petition No. 298/2004 and petition No. 256/2004 filed under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. The first one was filed by the defendants and the second one by the plaintiffs in Money Suit No. 11/2003.

2. CRP No. 426/06 has been filed by the plaintiff whereas the other there have been filed by the defendants.

Since the matter pertains to the common impugned order requiring to decide the legality and validity of the same, all the petitions are heard analogously as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. I have heard Mr. J. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in CRP 426/2006 and Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the other petitions.

4. The petitioners in CRP 426/2006 instituted the Money Suit being MS No. 11/03 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Morigaon, praying for realization of a sum of Rs. 23,53,425.00 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum impleading the respondents as defendants.

After receipt of the summon, the defendants appearing in the suit raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit for want of cause of action as well as territorial jurisdiction of the Court by filing an application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The plaintiffs' side also filed the application for amendment of the plaint to the effect that at the time of filing of the suit that the place of cause of action was wrongly typed as 'Guwahati' instead of ‘Jagiroad' and, as such, it becomes necessary to amend the Para-13 of the plaint by putting the word 'Jagiroad' in place of Guwahati, which was wrongly typed. The defendants filed the written objections against the prayer for amendment raising objection to the effect that the petition was not properly filed as it is stated that the said petition has not been filed by the parties to the suit but it was by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and also the verification of the affidavits were not made by the plaintiffs themselves but by their counsels. No written objection was, however, filed against the application praying for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected both the petitions. The prayer of the plaintiffs to amend the plaint was rejected on the ground that although the verification of the application was made by the engaged counsel of the plaintiff, the particular paragraph is not verified and in terms of Order 6, Rule 15,CPC, such an application is to be verified by the party or by one of the parties or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. The learned trial Court, found that the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs to be a person not acquainted with the facts of the case. The next finding of the learned trial Court, while rejecting the prayer for the proposed amendment is that such amendment would change the nature and character of the suit when the place of cause of action is allowed to be changed.

5. Since the survival of the major part of the argument in respect of the other three petitions would be consequentially depend upon the decision on the point regarding the amendment as raised in this petition, let me take up the said issue regarding amendment first and this fact was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. There is no dispute to the fact that Mr. M.A. Rahman, Advocate, is the engaged counsel of the plaintiffs in the suit. It is also undisputed fact that the said counsel in support of the application for amendment made the verification on the application as well as submitted the affidavit along with the same. The plaint or the application can be si