IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUAND AND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4976 of 2009 Between: Pulaparthi Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Rao, aged about 40 years, R/o. Aadurru, Mamidukuduru Mandal, East Godavari District …Petitioner/Respondent AND Reddy and Reddy Imports and Exports, Rep by its Managing Partner, Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o.Satyanaraya Reddy, Aged 42 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Bhimavaram. …Respondent/Petitioner THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Civil Revision Petition No.4976 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent firm instituted O.S.No.178 of 2003 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) from the sole defendant – petitioner herein. The suit is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, respondent realised that though the plaint was presented in the name of firm, by inadvertence, name of the firm was not stamped or typewritten at the bottom of plaint or in verification paragraph. In both areas, it was just mentioned as plaintiff but was signed by Managing Partner of firm. Probably apprehending an objection might arise with reference to Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), respondent took out interlocutory application, being I.A.No.65 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, praying the learned trial Judge to permit amendment by mentioning the words ‘M/s. Reddy and Reddy Imports and Exports represented by its Managing Partner Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy, Bhimavaram’ instead of the word ‘plaintiff’ at the bottom of plaint and verification para. The same was opposed. Learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram came to conclusion that the amendment sought is of technical in nature and that it would not prejudice the defendant and accordingly allowed the same. The said order dated 18.06.2009, is the subject matter of the present Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant strenuously submits that once the trial is completed, application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC would not lie, especially when the same would prejudice the defendant and precludes him from raising the grounds. After giving anxious consideration, this Court is convinced that the submission is without any merit. Learned trial Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of record. It is well settled that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie on mere errors or lapses on the part of trial Judge. In this case, the amendment sought is not of substantial nature. By reason of procedural lapses, the party must not be made to suffer. The Civil Revision Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 23, 2009 Bvv