IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 29 of 2011 Satya Prakash Kukreti. … Revisionist. Versus State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, learned counsel for the U.P.F.C.-respondent no.3. Date May 10, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 4586 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-4- 2011 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 678 of 1991 Satya Prakash Vs. State whereby the application (paper no. 316A) filed by the revisionist seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected. The revisionist herein is the plaintiff before the court below. I have perused the amendment application moved by the revisionist. In the amendment application, the revisionist-plantiff has sought to add the following at the end of para 18 of the plaint. “as the amount in respect of which citation have been issued are not recoverable from the plaintiff and are beyond the alleged guarantee of the plaintiff.” A perusal of paragraph no. 15 of the plaint reveals that averment has been made that the amount is not recoverable from the plaintiff. In paragraph 17 of the plaint, it is stated that no recovery certificate could be legally issued against the surety/guarantor under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972 as the plaintiff is not the defaulter. In paragraph no. 18 of the plaint it is stated that the recovery proceedings against the plaintiff are void and are liable to be quashed. 2 Thus it is obvious that first part of the proposed amendment is exactly the verbatim of paragraph no. 15 of the plaint. So far as the latter part of the proposed amendment i.e. “are beyond the alleged guarantee of the plaintiff” is concerned, since the revisionist-plaintiff has already pleaded that the recovery proceedings against the plaintiff are void and liable to be quashed, the revisionist-plaintiff may argue before the trial court as to how the recovery is beyond the alleged guarantee of the plaintiff. There is no need of amendment of plaint. I am not inclined to entertain the revision for the reason discussed above. Since the suit is pending for disposal since the year 1991, the same shall be decided by the trial court expeditiously as far as possible, on merits in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. With the above observations, the revision is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP