ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, in I.A.No.340 of 2014 in O.S.No.135 of 2011 dated 12.06.2014, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that the petition is filed after commencement of the trial.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court in brief is that he filed suit for recovery of his promissory note debt from the legal heirs of the original borrower, by name Mr.Mitta Srinivasa Rao, son of Tirupathaiah, a resident of Lemalle village in Amaravati mandal. The petitioner submits that the original borrower borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from him for his family expenses, and executed demand promissory note in his favour on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, wherein he was examined as PW.1, and then he found typographical mistake crept in with regard to place of execution in the promissory note. It is the contention of the petitioner that though promissory note was executed at his house, it is stated in the plaint that it is commonly typed in the plaint that it was executed at the residence of original borrower. He submits that the said mistake is only typographical mistake. He prays to permit him to amend the plaint, which reads as under:-

1) To delete the words “at Lemalle village in Amaravathi Mandal” in Plaint Para No.4 page No.1 and to substitute the words with „in Guntur town‟ in that place.

2) To delete the words at “at Lemalle village in Amaravathi Mandal‟ in lines 3 and 4 of para 6 in page No.2.

3) To delete the words “borrowal took place and where the promissory note was executed” in para 6 of lines 10 and

11.

4) To substitute the words with “Mitta Srinivasa Rao deceased original borrower resides and holds properties” in para 6 of lines 10 and 11.

He prays to allow the petition.

3. The respondents filed counter before trial Court, denying the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that in the suit, the petitioner already examined as PW.1, and then the suit was coming up for further evidence of the plaintiff, but the petitioner kept quiet for long period without filing any application for amendment and filed petition with false allegations, which is not maintainable.

They pray to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, seeking for amendment of the plaint as stated in his affidavit on the ground that petition seeking for amendment filed after commencement of the trial, that too when the same is pointed out during the cross-

examination of PW.1.

5. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the learned trial Judge, the 1st petitioner, who is now died, his legal representative is added as 2nd petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition, stating that the Orders passed by the trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that as per original suit promissory note, wherein it is stated that the place of execution is at Guntur, but not at borrower’s residence, which failed to consider by the learned trial Judge, and erroneously dismissed the petition. She prays to allow the petition.

6. I have heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though place of execution is stated as Guntur city in the suit promissory note, but due to typographical mistake, the place of execution is stated as Lemalle village, which is a residence of borrower Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, which has to be corrected, due to that the petitioner came up with a petition, seeking for amendment, which erroneously dismissed by the learned tri