THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3790 OF 2009 DATED: 31-01-2011 Between: State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Chief Manager, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER And S.P.Venkata Shiva Lalitha & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01-08-2009, in I.A.No.689 of 2009 in O.S.No.836 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-plaintiff-bank filed the suit for recovery of certain amount due from the respondents-defendants. According to the plaintiff, defendants availed a loan under loan agreement, dated 05.09.2003, agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2400/- each. The loan period under the agreement would expire by 05.09.2006. Plaintiff pleads that the defendants paid some instalments and committed default thereafter and they approached the bank and acknowledged the debt on 13.08.2006, promising to repay the same, however, did not keep up the promise. In the plaint also, the said averment is made. Plaintiff, however, seeks amendment of the plaint by way of adding paragraph Nos.6A and 8A to amplify the plea regarding the alleged acknowledgement of liability by the defendants and their promise to repay the outstanding loan amount. The trial Court dismissed the said application observing that as per the expert’s opinion, the disputed document, dated 13.08.2006, is not genuine. The expert’s opinion is only opinion evidence, which has to be considered along with other evidence that may be brought on record during the course of trial. The plea of the defendants that they never acknowledged the liability and the alleged letter of acknowledgement, dated 13.08.2006, is not genuine, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court on evidence. When the plaintiff has made necessary averment in the plaint regarding the alleged acknowledgement of liability by the defendants on 13.08.2006 and they sought amendment of the plaint only for the purpose of amplifying the scope of the said plea, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants by permitting such an amendment. The proposed amendment does not have any bearing on question of limitation inasmuch as the suit was filed in the year, 2008 itself, much prior to the expiry of the limitation period of 3 years, and hence no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and no valuable rights of the defendants get defeated. 4. The trial Court appears to have dismissed the application having been carried away by the expert’s opinion, which is not a proper course. In the circumstances, it is considered that the petitioner-plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint, as proposed. Needless to point out that the defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement, if so advised. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the petition for amendment, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.689 of 2009 stands allowed. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim stay granted on 30-04-2009 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 31st January, 2011. Tsy/KSM