THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3300 of 2009 Dated:19th November, 2009 Between: Kondragunta Venkata Rao ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Vankayala Chinnaiah .....Respondent/Defendant *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3300 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2009 passed in I.A.No.1110 of 2008 in O.S.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, whereby and where under the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 and u/Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.225 of 2005. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on a pronote, which has been exhibited as Ex.A1. The respondent/defendant filed written statement disputing the very execution of Ex.A1 suit pronote apart from pleading that it is a rank forgery. The trial Court framed the issues and thereupon, the plaintiff adduced evidence and examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 on his behalf. Thereafter, he filed I.A.No.1110 of 2008 under Order VI, Rule 17 and u/S.151 CPC to permit him to amend the plaint by way of substitution of the place of execution of the document as ‘Addanki’. In the plaint it has been stated that the defendant executed the suit pronote at Nagulapadu village. By way of amendment, the plaintiff sought to state that the suit pronote was executed at Addanki. The defendant filed counter opposing the application. His principal opposition is that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the place of execution of the suit pronote after adducing evidence on his behalf. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that permitting the plaintiff to amend the place of execution of the suit pronote as ‘Addanki’ would cause prejudice to the defendant. The relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision reads as hereunder: “This decision is not at all applicable to the present circumstances of the case as the petitioner himself is seeking amendment of his pleadings and not the Defendant is seeking the amendment of pleadings of the Petitioner. It is well settled law that the proposed amendment can be permitted without going into the merits when it is established that it does not change the cause of action for the suit or when it does not introduce any new cause of action and when it does not effect the rights and does not cause prejudice to the opposite party. In the present case, since the place of execution as stated in the plaint itself is sought to be amended, there will be a change in the cause of action since it is clearly mentioned in the cause of action para of the plaint that the suit pronote had been executed at Nagulapadu village specifically. Permitting the petitioner to amend such aspect would cause prejudice to the Respondent. Merely because both Nagulapadu and Addanki are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, it does not enable the Petitioner to amend the plaint on that ground. He has to show satisfactory reasons. Likewise, the plea of forgery does not enable the Petitioner/Plaintiff to change the place of execution in the manner so as to suit his case which is clear from the records. So, in view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the proposed amendment is changing the cause of action, thereby causing loss to the Respondent and hence, it cannot be permitted.” The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 24.07.2009. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. When the revision came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing or the respondent/defendant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the trial Court has committed error in observing that the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent/defendant since the plea of the defendant is that the suit pronote is a rank forgery and at no point of time, the respondent/defendant disputed the place of execution of the suit pronote as spoken out by Pws.1 to 4. He would also contend that the proposed amendment does not introduce any new cause of action nor affect the defence taken by the respondent/defendant. It is further contended by him that the petitioner/plaintiff came to know of the mistake crept in the plaint with regard to the place of execution of the suit pronote after examination of PWs.1 to 4 and immediately he filed the application seeking amendment and therefore, no laches could be attributed to him. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak D.John v. S.Rayappan & Ors.[1]; Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K.Modi[2] and the decision of our High Court in Chintaparthi Venkataramana Reddy v. Nallam Rajamma[3]. 7. In Ragu Thilak D.John’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. 8. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal’s case (2 supra), the Supreme Court held that the object of Order 6 Rule 17 is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the large interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court. The court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide. The amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice. The court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard the rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. Paras.14 to 18 of the cited judgment need to be noted and they are thus: “14. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads thus: "17) Amendment of Pleadings - The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. " This rule declares that the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. It also states that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso enacts that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter for which amendment is sought before the commencement of the trial. 15. The object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may)and leaves it to the court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 17. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. 18. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the high Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to subserve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the court.” 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the petitioner/plaintiff commenced the trial and examined four witnesses on his behalf and at this distance of time, allowing the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint by changing the place of execution of the suit pronote causes substantial prejudice to the defence pleaded by the defendant. He would also contend that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and therefore, the order impugned in the revision does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint with regard to the place of execution of the suit pronote deserves to be allowed? 11. Order VI, Rule 17 CPC has already been extracted supra while referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal’s case (2 supra). Under the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 12. The petitioner/plaintiff has come up with a specific plea that the mistake crept in the plaint has been surfaced only after conclusion of the evidence on his behalf. Four witnesses have been examined by the petitioner/plaintiff on his behalf, including himself, the attestors and the scribe of suit pronote. All the witnesses stated in one voice that the suit pronote has been executed at Addanki. Nothing is suggested to these witnesses that the suit pronote is executed at the place other than Addanki. Indeed the plea of the respondent/defendant is that he never executed Ex.A1 suit pronote and the signature appearing thereon of him is a rank forgery. Such is the plea taken by the respondent/defendant, the observation made by the trial Court that the proposed amendment in the plaint with regard to the place of execution of the suit pronote would cause prejudice to his rights can not be sustained. The petitioner/plaintiff has given proper explanation for not filing the application seeking amendment of the plaint before commencement of the trial. The embargo put in the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC has been properly explained by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 02.05.2009 passed in I.A.No.1110 of 2008 in O.S.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, and consequently, I.A.No.1110 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th November, 2009. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3300 of 2009 Dated:19th November, 2009 [1] (200) 2 SCC 472 [2] (2006) 4 SCC 385 [3] AIR 1988 A.P. 40