THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO.4192 OF 2011 ORDER: This is plaintiff’s revision against order of the trial Court refusing to permit amendment of plaint. The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs.2,50,000/-. Evidence of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants was already led in the suit. The suit has been heard at the arguments stage on behalf of both sides. Thereafter, the plaintiff came up with the present application i.e., I.A.No.149 of 2011 seeking amendment of the plaint to correct the alleged topographical errors in the body of the plaint. The said application mentions that in the plaint there are topographical mistakes instead of ‘first defendant to 3rd defendant’, the words ‘first defendant to second defendant’ is typed. Some topographical errors are found in the rest of the plaint, which is now sought to be corrected by the present application. That application was opposed by the respondents by contending that after hearing of arguments in the suit itself, the application is not maintainable and there is no due diligence evident on the part of the plaintiffs for allowing such belated amendment. The said contest by the respondents was accepted by the Court below while recording that it changes the nature of the suit. Against the said impugned order, the revision is filed. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that topographical errors describing the array of the defendants is required to be corrected and also states, on instructions, that the plaintiffs would not seek any opportunity to lead any further evidence in view of the said amendment and would cooperate for the trial and disposal of the suit. He further submits that the topographical mistakes in the plaint which was noticed at the stage of arguments are sought to be corrected by the present application which would not cause any prejudice to the contesting defendants. Per contra, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao places reliance upon the decision of this Court in Yellapu Damayanthi and others vs. Dolamarasetti Hemalatha and submits that the belated amendment under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, especially when arguments were heard in this matter, it is not permissible. Learned counsel also states that respondents-defendants may now be required to be lead evidence if such amendment is allowed and thereby delay the disposal of the suit. The decision cited by the learned counsel for respondents relates to facts where a written statement was sought to be amended. The principles governing amendment of plaint and written statement are different and on the facts of the present case, it is only with respect to amendment of the plaint to rectify topographical errors. I am of the view that the amendment ought to have been allowed as prayed for especially when the petitioners-plaintiffs state that no further oral evidence is necessary or would be asked for on behalf of the plaintiffs. From the plaintiffs’ point of view, if the amendment is allowed, the matter can straight away be heard afresh if necessary and disposed of. I am therefore not able to see any prejudice caused to the respondents except that disposal of the suit has got delayed on account of this application and for that the defendants can always be compensated. So far as the defendants contention that they may be required to lead further evidence is concerned, I am unable to appreciate that request. In the absence of any evidence to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, there may not be any necessity to lead rebuttal evidence by the defendants. However, in case the defendants desire to lead any further evidence, pursuant to the amendment herein being allowed, they are at liberty to do so and make appropriate request to the Court and the Court below shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed, thereby I.A.No.149 of 2011 filed by the petitioners shall stand allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited before the trial Court within two weeks from today and if so deposited, the contesting defendants 1 to 3 shall be permitted to withdraw the same. The petitioners shall also file the amended plaint before the trial Court within two weeks and cooperate for disposal of the suit. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J rkk Dated: 25-11-2011 Note: Issue CC by three days.