IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3626 OF 2009 Between: P.Venkata Ramana ..... PETITIONER AND Ennoble India Chit Limited, Ananthapur, represented by it’s Manager, Foreman and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3626 of 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.118 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of money. Pending the suit, the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff filed I.A.No.114 of 2009 in O.S.No.118 of 2006 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint by deleting the sentence “first defendant was paid Rs.1,74,625/- by cheque No.552361” and substituting it with “first defendant was paid Rs.1,74,625/- by way of cash”. Though the revision petitioner/1st defendant opposed the said petition, the Court below by order dated 26.06.2009 allowed the amendment on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Whether the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff has paid the amount to the petitioner/defendant or not is a matter to be established on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced in the main suit and it is not necessary at this stage to express any opinion on the correctness of the said plea. So far as the present application is concerned, as rightly held by the Court below, the proposed amendment did not introduce a new cause of action nor the nature of the suit was altered. In the circumstances, the Court below was justified in allowing the amendment and the interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 04.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd