THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.5209 of 2009 Date: 06-11-2009 Between Ganta Ananda Rao … Petitioner/Plaintiff and S.Venkateswara Rao … Respondent/Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.5209 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri G.Dharma Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 08-10-2009, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.596 of 2009 in O.S.No.363 of 2008, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit before the Court below. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the date of promissory note had been wrongly mentioned in the plaint pleadings. Subsequently, having realized the mistake the present application came to be filed seeking to amend the date of promissory note in the plaint pleadings. That was not accepted by the Court below. 5. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the date mentioned on the promissory note is very vital and if that date is sought to be changed, it may change the very nature of the suit and some times may also raises new questions regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have been more vigilant while the pleadings are drafted. The Court cannot automatically agree with the plaintiff in ordering such applications, particularly the dates mentioned in the plaint pleadings unless satisfactory reasons are assigned. I do not find any such satisfactory reason except that the pleadings were wrongly drafted and the mistake that crept in the plaint pleadings was only a typographical error. If this contention is to be accepted without the support of any other corroborating aspects, every such amendment has to be automatically carried out by the Court. The Courts cannot allow such applications for mere asking. This is a question of complete satisfaction of the Court that is to be taken into consideration. 6. For the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. 8. However, the above aspect can be agitated in the trial by adducing oral evidence and the Court below can consider the evidence on record and arrive at an independent conclusion, notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 06th November, 2009. Ak