THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1924 of 2010 DATED: 01.04.2011 Between: Chandrakanth Sharda. .... PETITIONER And M/s Mahaveer Chemicals, Rep.by the authorized signatory, Hyderabad & 2 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.02.2010, in I.A.No.515 of 2009 in O.S.No.904 of 2003 on the file of the learned XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from encashing the cheques mentioned in schedule ‘A’ issued by the plaintiff in favour of the third defendant and for a decree for Rs.7,50,000/- against the 1st defendant with future interest @ 18% p.a. Respondent-defendant filed the written statement contesting the suit. It is stated that necessary issues were settled and the matter has reached the stage of arguments. At that stage, plaintiff filed the present application seeking amendment of the plaint prayer to the effect that a decree for Rs.15,00,000/- against the 1st defendant with future interest @ 18% p.a. be passed. It is not disputed that the 1st defendant has already withdrawn an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by furnishing bank guarantee in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 18.09.2003 in C.M.A.No.3261 of 2003 and failed to renew the bank guarantee for the period subsequent to 27.10.2004. 4. According to the 1st defendant, there was no direction from the Court for such a renewal. Plaintiff therefore seeks to recover the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- also in addition to the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- already paid for in the suit. The trial Court also observed that the fact of withdrawal of the amount without there being any extension of bank guarantee is a matter of record and it was also brought into evidence while cross-examining D.W.1 and therefore even without any such amendment, plaintiff would be entitled for the relief asked for in the amendment. Defendant cannot have any objection for the proposed amendment in view of the subsequent events that have taken place and it is only for the plaintiff who will have to pay the additional Court fee in respect of the amount now sought to be recovered consequent to the proposed amendment. In the circumstances, it is held that in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint as prayed for. Needless to state that the defendant would be at liberty to file additional written statement if he chooses to upon the amendment of the plaint. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as proposed. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st April, 2011. Tsy