HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 5314 of 2010 DATED: 22.07.2011 Between: N. Motilal and three others .. Appellants And Faisal Bin Ali and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioners herein are the tenants. The respondents herein who are the owners of the petition schedule premises, filed R.C. No. 373 of 2009 before III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking fixation of fair rent for the petition schedule mulgi/shop, and during its pendency, the respondents filed the present application in I.A. No. 433 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to permit them to amend the main R.C. by adding “the lease period mentioned in the lease deed dated 27.08.1990 has been expired on 31.07.2010” in paragraph 8 of the petition and “the cause of action also arose on 01.08.2010 when the lease period expired” in paragraph 10 of the petition, and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 23.09.2010, the petitioners-tenants have filed the present Civil Revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has contended that once there is no cause of action as on the date of filing the application for fixation of fair rent, the alleged expiry of the lease deed on 31.07.2010 does not give any cause of action, and once the trial has commenced, subsequent applications for amendment are not maintainable as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as such, the trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the respondents seeking amendment of the main R.C. as the same is not maintainable, and prays to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents-owners of the petition schedule property has contended that the proposed amendment is purely a subsequent event and the main R.C. is necessarily required to be amended, and the same will not cause prejudice to the petitioners, as such, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision reported in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India[1] wherein it is held to the following effect: “Order VI Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision.” No doubt, the lease deed dated 27.08.1990 expired on 31.07.2010 and it is purely a subsequent event. Even if the pleadings are amended at the stage of trial, the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the case as the amendment sought for is only a subsequent event and no prejudice will be caused to the other side. Further, as regards the principle laid down in the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondents have shown due diligence with regard to the subsequent event in respect of the expiry of the lease period and the same was taken note of by the Rent Controller, and the object of seeking amendment of the pleadings by the respondents is neither to cause delay in the trial nor to cause any prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners-tenants from making all their pleas before appropriate forum. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 22.07.2011 bcj [1] 2005(5) (ALD (SC)