IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5809 of 2009 Between: M/s.Saravana Satya Ventures, represented by Managing Partner Uma Sravan Kumar and another. … Petitioners And G.M.R.K.Prasad. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5809 OF 2009 ORDER:- This Revision by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram dated 21.10.2009 in allowing I.A.No.681 of 2009 filed for amendment of the plaint and adding second petitioner as second defendant in the suit-O.S.No.162 of 2007. Initially, the suit is filed against the first petitioner herein for recovery of the amount. On its filing written statement that the first defendant is not a registered firm and the document dated 20.02.2007 was executed in between the plaintiff and the second petitioner herein, it has nothing to do with the transaction plaintiff sought an amendment of the plaint and the same was contested by the first petitioner that evidence of plaintiff is closed and affidavit in chief of D.W.1 was also filed, at that belated stage the amendment cannot be allowed. Lower court in exercise of its discretion held that since the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 debt acknowledgment letter, which was signed by the plaintiff and Uma Sravan Kumar and attested by two witnesses, there is no need to go into the document at this stage, which can be gone into during the course of trial and allowed the I.A. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Balasaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami[1] held that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Since the amendment sought now does not amount to withdrawal of admission or sets up a new cause of action in the plaint, the petitioners and the party who is impleaded will have a right to file his written statement and can lead evidence. The same will not cause any injustice to the parties to the suit. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 18th December 2009. LMV [1] 2007(5) ALD 79 (SC)