HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.5479 OF 2007 Dt.11.11.2010 Between: M.Prabhakara Rao ..Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.5479 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.267 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, dated 23.10.2007. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. The petitioner filed suit O.S.No.135 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, seeking recovery of Rs.1,82,32,000/- with interest. Para III(m) of the plaint was relating to the work executed and the amount was approximately calculated at Rs.6,00,000/- and the said amount was withheld by the respondents. It is stated that during the course of evidence, the defendant Department produced the measurement books i.e., Ex.B-57 to 66 and the plaintiff came to know that the Department has admitted that an amount of Rs.15,80,822/- was due to the plaintiff under the contract Ex.B-68 measurement book as the plaintiff had no knowledge of the factual figures till the measurement books are produced in the court. Hence, the petitioner filed application in I.A.No.267 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., and Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice for amendment of the plaint to delete certain paragraphs and add the relevant paragraph with regard to the substitution of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to that of Rs.15,80,822/-. The said application had been dismissed by order, dated 23.10.2007, on the ground that the application is belated and the matter was coming for arguments. Heard the learned counsel. Admittedly, the amended Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., has no application to the suit in question as the suit was filed in 1999, whereas the amendment to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., is with effect from 1.7.2002. However, as per the amended proviso, such an application can be allowed even after commencement of the trial if the court comes to the conclusion that such an amendment could not have been filed by the plaintiff in spite of due diligence and to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, such amendment can also be ordered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a delay in filing the said amendment application. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff came to know about the entitlement of Rs.15,80,822/- and accordingly the petitioner was ready to pay the differential court fee for increasing the total figure of Rs.1,82,32,000/- to that of Rs.1,92,12,822/- and from the court fee of Rs.1,84,746/- to Rs.1,94,626/-. This Court while issuing notice before admission granted interim stay on 14.12.2007. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for amendment of the said claim. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. The application in I.A.No.267 of 2007 in O.S.No.135 of 1999 stands allowed. The petitioner shall file amended plaint within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the defendants shall file their written statement within two weeks thereafter. The suit be disposed of expeditiously. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 11.11.2010 kpr