THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.NO.4691 OF 2009 4TH FEBRUARY 04-02-2010 BETWEEN: ALAPAKA CHINA MASTHANAIAH .. PETITIONER AND KRISHNA REDDY RAVINDRA REDDY AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.NO.4691 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against an order dated 22-7-2009 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2008 in I.P.No.15 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, whereunder the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC r/w section 94(E) and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition was allowed. 1st respondent herein filed I.P.No.15 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. The petitioner herein and other respondents filed their written statements immediately thereafter. However, the 1st respondent filed a petition in I.A.No.12 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC r/w section 94(E) and Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of certain portions of the petition on the ground that there were inadvertent mistakes occurred therein as to mentioning of the respondents as R1 and R2 in place of R2 and R1. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by filing a detailed counter. However, after perusing the record and after considering the arguments advanced by either counsel, the court below came to the conclusion that amendment of the petition in I.P.No.15 of 2005 does not alter the nature of the I.P. and therefore ordered the same. Aggrieved thereby the present revision is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions relating to the amendment of the pleadings contained in the Civil Procedure Code would be applicable to the petition in insolvency under the Provisional Insolvency Act. Petitioning the creditor ought not to be allowed in this petition so as to enable him to substitute new grounds or acts of insolvency, in place of those which he had originally set up and which are of no avail to him, if that would cause serious injury and grave injustice to the other party, which cannot be compensated by costs. If the effect of amendment would be through out the petitioner-creditor that rights which he would not have had if a new petition of insolvency were presented by him, on that date on which he applies for amendment, the court ought not to grant leave to amendment and this is one such case according to the petitioner. I am unable to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The order impugned in this revision reads as under: “ Now the point for consideration is : Whether there are sufficient reasons for amendment of the petition. I have gone through the original petition and the documents filed along with main petition. They are promissory note and registration extract of sale deed dated 6.10.2005. The said registered sale deed reveal that it was executed by Alapaka China Masthanaiah son of Masthanaiah in favour of Palagani Rajesh. It means the 1st respondent executed the document in favour of the 2nd respondent. The promissory notes filed along with the petition reveal that the first respondent executed the promissory notes in favour of the petitioners. Now the petitioner filed the I.P. stating that by executing the sale deed dt.5.10.2005 the executant has committed act of insolvency so the intention of the petitioner is to declare the executant of the document as an insolvent. Moreover in para No.4 of line Nos.2,3,7 it is stated that the 1st respondent has failed to repay the amount. The same paragraphs further reveals that the 1st respondent received a notice on 20.1.2005. In para No.5 it is stated that 1st respondent is owner of the petition schedule property. In the same para at line No.6, it is stated that 1st respondent had sold away schedule mentioned property in favour of 2nd respondent and executed a reg. Sale deed on 5.10.2005. It further reveals that the registration extract of the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of 2nd respondent is filed. It further reveals that the 1st respondent brought into existence of the above referred sale deed only with the malafide intention of evading the debt of the petitioner. However, in the above sentences at the place of 1st respondent it was typed as 2nd respondent. However, there was a correction and the 2nd respondent is altered to 1st respondent, but he did not make correctness at para No.7 and prayer portion at para No.9. The circumstances clearly reveal that the mistake committed is only during the course of typing. Some of the paragraphs in the petition clearly reveal that the 1st respondent borrowed the amount and he executed sale deed. The documents filed also reveals as per contention of the petitioner, 1st respondent is borrower and he committed act of insolvency. Since it is a typographical mistake even if it is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein. If this petition has not been filed within 90 days from the date of execution of the sale deed certainly it would be barred by limitation. Since it was filed within 3 months and no circumstances it could be said that it was barred by limitation. If the amendment is allowed see the nature of the dispute or the cause of action could not be charged.” From the above it is clear that the amendment of the petition would neither alter the nature of the relief sought for nor it can be said that it further brings any burden on the petitioner herein to face the trial. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lower court has not committed any error in ordering the petition as prayed for, calling interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 4th February 2010. ( C.V.RAMULU,J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.NO.4691 OF 2009 4TH FEBRUARY 2010