Civil Revision No.3012 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3012 of 2008 Date of Decision:20.03.2009 Jai Parkash Gupta ....petitioner versus Sandeep & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Mukal Aggarwal,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Nakul Sharma,Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Ferozepur, whereby application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. As per the averments made in the petition, the father of the respondents had raised a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner on 20.11.2000 and as a security thereof, executed a pronote and receipt in this regard. Father of the respondents died on 28.11.2000 without repaying the above said loan amount. The respondents also refused to discharge the liability of their father despite repeated requests. Consequently, petitioner filed civil suit for recovery of the loan amount along with the interest. It is further the case of the petitioner that at the time of Civil Revision No.3012 of 2008 2 execution of the pronote and receipt due to typographical error the date of execution of pronote and receipt was typed as 20.11.2001 instead of 20.11.2000 and this mistake crept in the plaint also. Accordingly, petitioner moved an application for correction of the above said dates by way of amendment on 08.06.2005 which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order. Challenging the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suit is at the initial stage and even the pleadings are not complete and therefore no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents if the proposed amendment is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that by the proposed amendment, nature of the suit will not change at all and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the suit is at the initial stage. Thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is allowed the proposed amendment, at this stage as the respondents have the full opportunity to defend their case. Moreover, the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner as the original suit for recovery on the basis of the pronote and receipt executed by the father of the respondents is the basis of the suit even after the proposed amendment. The question whether the alleged pronote and receipt were executed by the father of the respondents on 20.11.2000 or 20.11.2001 is a question of fact and it is for the parties to prove their case by leading evidence. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the application Civil Revision No.3012 of 2008 3 filed by the petitioner for proposed amendment to the plaint is allowed. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court on 15.04.2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 20.03.2009 neenu