THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.822 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/

defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 25.07.2018 passed in I.A.No.2239 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule

17 of C.P.C for amendment of pleadings in the suit plaint.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit i.e., O.S.No.188 of 2017. The respondents herein filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.83.58 crores with future interest against the respondents- defendants i.e., the petitioners. During pendency of the said suit, the respondents filed I.A.No.2239 of 2018 to permit them to amend the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that due to typographical error the amount was mentioned as “Rs.59.01 Crores” instead of “Rs.78.01 Crores”, therefore, the same has to be amended.

3. The petitioners/respondents/defendants filed counter before the trial Court stating that the amendment sought for is misconceived and is not permissible under law. It is further contended that the said suit is filed under summons procedure and no amendment is permissible and the very suit itself is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the I.A.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents, the learned Judge has come to conclusion that it is only typographical error and as such permitted the respondents herein to amend the plaint by mentioning the amount of Rs.78.01 crores in place of Rs.59.01 crores.

5. Aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the amendment sought for is correction of figures. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought not to have allowed the amendment petition as the very amendment for the pleadings which are intended to be brought on record would come against their own pleadings in the plaint and the material placed on record. Therefore, prayed to allow the C.R.P.

6. Heard Mr. Srinivas Chitluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Abu Akram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. On perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, now the point that arises for consideration before this Court is “whether the amendment permitted by the learned Judge is sustainable in law or not.”

8. POINT:-

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire material placed on record the amendment which is sought for is only in respect of the correction as to the amount which is mentioned i.e, Rs.78.01 crores in place of Rs.59.01 crores.

9. It is the case of the respondents that they filed the suit for recovery of Rs.83,58 Crores with future interest and out of which they found Rs.78.01 Crores were withdrawn by 47 cheques to the fake Account number and they realized Rs.19.00 Crores and Rs.59.01 is to be recovered and due to typographical mistake instead of Rs.78.01 Crores, they mentioned in the plaint as Rs.59.01 Crores. Whereas, it is contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein that as the very amendment would change entire pleadings of the plaint. It is settled law that any amount of the pleadings which are made by the plaintiffs is subject to the proof and the burden would lie on the plaintiffs to prove the pleadings by way of collecting the evidence.

10. Hence, this Court feels that if the amendment as sought for is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants i.e., revision petitioners herein, for the reason that the revision petitioners/ defendants would get a chance to file re- joinder to the said amendment or by way of filing additional written statement. Besides that the revision petitioners/defendants also would get a ch