HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6079 OF 2010 DATE: 20.04.2011 BETWEEN: Podipireddi Saraswathi .. Petitioner AND Pediredla Venkata Rao and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6079 OF 2010 ORDER: I have heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents, though served with notice. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit basing on the promissory note for recovery of certain amount. Apart from the other issues, the learned trial Court framed additional issue which is as follows: “Whether there is any material alteration at the interest portion or not?” The plaintiff filed I.A.No.328 of 2010 under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. to amend and recast the issue as to whether the correction in the interest portion of suit promissory note amounts to material alteration valid under law. The learned trial Court upon hearing both the counsel declined to recast the issue on the ground that already there was an issue framed by it basing on the allegations mentioned in the written statement. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that PWs.1 and 2 examined on behalf of the plaintiff have stated in their evidence that at the time of executing Ex.A.1 promissory note which is on a printed form, the interest portion was changed from 12% per annum to 24% per annum with the consent of the parties and therefore, unless the issue is amended, his case will be prejudiced. There is any amount of force in the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner since admittedly, there is a correction in the interest portion, the issue originally framed by the learned trial Court that whether there is any material alteration in the interest portion or not, only needs an enquiry whether there is a correction or not. In my view the additional issue is not properly framed and it has to be amended as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. I am also of the considered view that unless the issue is amended as prayed for and is recast, the case of the plaintiff will certainly be prejudiced. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to recast the additional Issue No.3 as “whether the correction in the interest portion of the suit promissory note amounts to material alteration under law” and proceed with the trial of the case after affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence in respect of the said issue apart from the other evidence to prove their respective versions. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date:20.04.2011 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6079 OF 2010 DATE: 20.04.2011