* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.778 of 2010 %31.12.2010 # Arasavalli Tejaswari ….Petitioner Vs. $ Arasavalli Gopala Rao …. Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan Counsel for Respondent: Sri M. Ram Mohan <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.778 of 2010 Date: 31.12.2010 Between: Arasavalli Tejaswari ..... Petitioner AND Arasavalli Gopala Rao .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan Counsel for Respondent: Sri M. Ram Mohan The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.586 of 2009 in O.S.No.214 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. She filed O.S.No.214 of 2008 against the respondent, who is none other than her father, for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- towards expenses for her marriage. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner’s marriage was performed. Therefore, she has filed the above noted I.A. for amendment of the plaint by inserting the necessary pleadings pertaining to performance of marriage and incurring of expenditure. She has also sought for amendment to the extent of quantum of amount to be recovered from the respondent by substituting the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- originally claimed with Rs.2,50,000/-. This application was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, on the grounds that the petitioner failed to place any material in support of the averments relating to the amendment, that the amendment will certainly change the cause of action and that the nature of the suit will also be changed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the reasons on which the petitioner’s application has been rejected are not sound in law. In view of the subsequent event of the marriage of the petitioner, she has filed the application for amendment. Law does not prohibit such amendment based on a fresh cause of action. Indeed permitting such amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings. As regards the observation of the Court below that no material was placed in support of the petitioner’s averments, the absence of material at the stage of application for amendment is wholly irrelevant as the petitioner fails or succeeds on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by her during the trial after amendment is ordered. Therefore, the said reason is not germane for consideration of the application for amendment. With regard to the reason that the amendment will change the nature of the suit, the same is equally unsound because by raising the pleas pertaining to the subsequent events and enhancing the claim from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-, the nature of the suit will not undergo any change as the relief of recovery of money being the nature of the suit, the same remains notwithstanding the amendment. For the aforementioned reasons, the order under revision dated 29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.586 of 2009 in O.S.No.214 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the revision, C.R.P.M.P.No.1097 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st December, 2010 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) GHN