IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.101 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.4.2011 M/s.Karnataka Trading Company & anr. …. Petitioners Versus Sh.Ramesh Chand Aggarwal ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners: Mr.Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent: None ____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby he allowed the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. 2. In the main suit, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.68,600/-, i.e., principal amount of Rs.55,000/- alongwith Rs.13,600/- as interest alongwith future interest @ 9% per annum but in the details relating to the amount of cheques given, the cheques were for Rs.22000/- and Rs.23000/- respectively, i.e., a total sum of Rs.45,000/-. 2 3. An objection was taken by the defendants while applying for leave to defend the suit that the total of the cheques was only Rs.45,000/- whereas the principal amount was shown as Rs.55,000/- which would show that there has been some manipulation. On this basis, leave to defend the suit was granted and thereafter, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed. 4. It is contended by Sh.Satyen Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the defendants shall be prejudiced in case the amendment is allowed. 5. In my view, this contention is not correct. Merely allowing the amendment does not mean that the case of the plaintiff has been accepted. The plaintiff still has to prove his case and whether the cheques were misused or were actually issued or not are questions which the learned Trial Court shall decide on the basis of evidence led before it. Therefore, the petition is rejected at this stage. No order as to costs. April 4, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge 3