IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5183 OF 2009 Between: K.Srinivasulu and another ..... PETITIONERS AND M/s. Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Hindupur .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5183 OF 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.82 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money, allegedly due from the defendants/revision petitioners. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. Subsequently the defendants filed I.A.No.109 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the written statement by adding an additional plea that they had paid the chit amounts to the plaintiff-company and that the plaintiff-company had also issued receipts acknowledging the same. It was also pleaded that the mortgage site was gifted to the 2nd defendant by her parents for limited rights. It was stated that by bonafide mistake the said facts could not be pleaded in the written statement initially filed. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 31.08.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A perusal of the order under revision shows that the proposed amendment to the written statement was rejected mainly on the ground that the defendants had failed to put forward any documentary evidence showing prima-facie that the chit amounts were paid to the plaintiff-Company. The law is well settled that at the stage of allowing the amendment to the pleadings, it is not necessary for the Court to go into the correctness of the plea taken. The only question that requires consideration at that stage is whether the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit or results in injustice to the other side. On a careful consideration of the pleadings as well as the proposed amendment, it is clear that by allowing the proposed amendment neither the nature of the suit was altered nor any injustice would cause to the other side. Hence, the Court below ought not to have gone into examining the correctness of the plea taken in the amendment petition. As the order under Revision apparently suffered from a legal error, the same is hereby set aside and I.A.No.109 of 2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2006 shall stand allowed. There shall also be a direction to the Court below to dispose of the suit following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 19.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd