IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 723 OF 2009 Between: M.Akkulappa ..... PETITIONER AND Gorthi Yengappa .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 723 OF 2009 O R D E R : The defendant in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur is the revision petitioner. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money, allegedly due from the defendant/revision petitioner under a promissory note. While the suit was coming up for plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.339 of 2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint to the extent of altering the date of suit promissory note as 09.02.2005 instead of 08.02.2005. The Court below allowed the said amendment by order dated 08.12.2008 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the Court below had committed any error in permitting the amendment. Admittedly, by virtue of the amendment neither the nature of the suit was altered nor a new cause of action was introduced. It is also not the case of the defendant that the suit claim would be barred by limitation by virtue of the proposed amendment. Since it is for the plaintiff to establish his claim on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by allowing the amendment. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 25.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd