HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011 . DATED 30th DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Srungarapu Venkat Lakshmi Bhavani …Petitioner And Chellubiona Tulasimangatayaru ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at PalkoI, West Godavari District dismissing I.A.No. 886 of 2009 in O.S.No. 404 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of the written statement. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note dated 9.9.2003. The revision petitioner/defendant is contesting the said suit and in the process, she filed her written statement. After closure of the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the suit is posted for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant. At this stage, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the impugned petition seeking amendment of the written statement. The Court below dismissed the same. Hence this CRP. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that since the petitioner/defendant had not pleaded any conflicting or inconsistent pleadings in the proposed amendment the Court below ought to have allowed the impugned petition. He further submitted that due to oversight she (revision petitioner) had not mentioned the proposed amendment in the written statement and that even if the proposed amendment is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in as much as no new cause of action arises. Opposing the revision petition, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that since the impugned application was filed belatedly, the Court below relying on the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rightly dismissed the same. He submitted that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. Perused the case file. I see some force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the proposed amendment sought to be brought on record would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. Since the respondent/plaintiff had wrongly shown the profession of the revision petitioner/defendant as business, she is seeking to show that her profession is agriculture and in support of the same, she furnished the details of the extent of land owned by her and also as to how she succeeded to the same. She also pleaded that in the event of the Court below comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for, the interest has to be scaled down to12% per annum. The said proposed amendment does not give raise to any new cause of action in the matter. However, the aspects as to whether the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act of IV of 1938) is applicable to the facts of the case and Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to interest at 24% per annum in the event the plaintiff succeeds in the suit would be decided on the merits of the lis and after going through the material on record. In the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent in Narney Estates (P) Ltd Vs. N.Gopal Naidu {2011(5) ALD 445} a learned Single Judge of this Court confirmed the finding of the Court below in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint on the ground that the same was wholly belated and that the petitioner therein failed to plead and prove due diligence as envisaged under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. In the case on hand the petitioner herein is a small agriculturist and due to oversight she could not mention the proposed amendment in the written statement earlier filed. Further the technicalities of law should not come in the way of the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. It is therefore always advisable and desirable to decide the matter on merits rather than on the grounds of technicalities ,delays and laches. For the foregoing discussion, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at PalkoI, West Godavari District in I.A.No. 886 of 2009 in O.S.No. 404 of 2005 is set aside. As a sequel thereto, IA.No. 886 of 2009 in OS.No. 404 of 2005 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 30th December, 2011. Msnro