HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 27-4-2010. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4921 OF 2009 Between: Sri Sai Ram Corporation, Guntur represented by its Proprietor Kukkandla Ramaiah. …Petitioner. And: Eswara Seeds, Macherla represented by its Proprietor Beldi Viswanadham. ...Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4921 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala on 3rd August, 2009 in I.A.No.521 of 2009 in O.S.No.78 of 2007. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant. Though notice was served, none appeared for the plaintiff. Originally, a suit in O.S.No.78 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff before the Court below seeking to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.2,01, 428/- with subsequent interest and costs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application before the Court below in I.A.No.521 of 2009 in O.S.No.78 of 2007 seeking amendment of the Written Statement. The Court below having observed that the said plea alleged to be taken in the amended written statement is available even by the time of filing of the written statement and therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to take a different plea in the amended written statement, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant. Perused the material available on record and order impugned. Before going to deal with the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that a lis between the parties, shall be adjudicated on its own merits, but not on mere technicalities in order to have an affective adjudication of the issue involved and also to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings of this nature. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it a fit case wherein the order impugned can be set aside. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is allowed setting aside the order impugned. Consequently, the application in I.A.No.521 of 2009 in O.S.No.78 of 2007 is allowed. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 27-4-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4921 OF 2009 Dated 27-4-2010.