The main legal point established is that an amendment to the pleadings may be allowed after the commencement of trial if it does not alter the nature of the suit or the cause of action, and the party seeking the amendment has fulfilled the statutory requirements.

1. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.714 of 2008 pending on the file of VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai for a decree for Rs.7,23,330.63 together with interest at 14% per annum and for cost. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement and the suit came up for trial and the witnesses were examined.

2. The plaintiff filed petition under Order VI Rule 17 to incorporate an amendment into the plaint as regards date. In the affidavit he has stated that in 8th paragraph of the plaint it is stated that "another adjustment on Rs.3,36,000/- on 05-04-2007", however, it is a wrong pleading and instead of that the date may be amended as 05.04.2006. Likewise in paragraph 10 of the plaint also the same amendment is sought to be made. It is however stated that the mistakes are not willful nor wanton but due clerical error in the statement of accounts and by oversight and that the point of jurisdiction, limitation will not get altered by allowing the amendment application. In the written statement the defendant has clearly admitted that there was a payment of Rs.3,35,000/- payable by the Manager of the Chetput branch Mr.Subramanian for some ticketing that was done for him from August 2004. This amount he had cleared only in April 2006 and hence the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the defendants.

3. The above said pleadings were resisted in the counter filed by the respondent/defendants by stating that the operation of the loan account was stopped in December 2004 itself and thereafter there had been no transaction at all. He never authorised any person to pay on his behalf towards loan account and the entry of the said amount is stoutly denied in the written statement and misconception of the said statement, the plaintiff wrongly assumed that the second defendant has authorised the manager to pay the amount. Further during the cross examination, the Senior Manager of the plaintiffs bank has also stated that Rs.3,35,000/-was made through a cheque and he has not mentioned about any details in this regard. Only to patch up the latches made by the plaintiff he has come forward with the amendment application. The proposed amendment would totally alter the nature of the case. There is no bona fide in the petition which is nothing but sheer of the process of the court and hence the petition has to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both sides, learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the application by observing that the petition is filed in a belated stage and also it is to circumvent the evidence of P.W.1, that it would alter the dimension of the suit definitely and hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.

5. Mr.S. Ramasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inasmuch as the second respondent himself written a letter to the bank on 112. 2007 by his own hand writing acknowledging the arrears of loan and also executed a revival letter on the even date acknowledging the outstanding as on that date, it is discernible that the wrong mentioning of the date as 05.04.2007 instead of 05.04.2006 is an oversight and by means of which no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

6. Arguing on the other side of the coin, Mr.K. Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would strenuously contend that only to suit the convenience of the plaintiffs bank, it has come forward with this amendment application; that there is no bona fide in the application, that definitely it has been pleaded and put to P.W.1 in the cross examination that there was no transaction after December 2004. Even without notice to the defendants the bank adjusted the deposit of Rs.40 lakhs made by the defendants in the loan and that the then Branch Manager played a fraud on the defendants and that the plaintiff has miserably failed to show who has made the payment of Rs.3.36 lakhs. In a nut shell, it is his contention that besides there is no bona fides in the amendm