THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 19675 OF 2009 DATE: 4-3-2010 Between: Varikuti Mohan Rao … Petitioner And 1. The Sri Gowri Cooperative Society Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director Visakhapatnam and 4 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 19675 OF 2009 ORDER: An application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the pleadings was allowed by the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in its order in I.A.No.181 of 2008 in O.P.No.132 of 2007 dated 20.3.2009 holding that such an amendment did not affect the right of the respondents. The Tribunal observed that the issue in dispute was whether the respondents were liable to pay any amount as claimed by the petitioner against the loan account; the amendment sought for, regarding repayments said to have been made by the respondents, would touch upon the real controversy in determining the liability, if any, by the respondents; the claim of the respondents was that the petitioner himself had pleaded regarding repayment which needed no proof; the respondents at the outset had disputed the loan transaction; but, while determining the liability, if the loan was proved, and if there were any repayments made by the respondents, this fact could be proved by placing counter- foils/receipts and made out from the entries in the loan record; the point of liability was to be decided basing on the record; and granting leave for amendment of the pleadings would not affect the rights of the respondents. The amendment sought by the petitioner was to substitute the following sentences: “subsequently 1st respondent paid the loan amount only to the extent of Rs.43,579/- (forty three thousand five hundred and seventy nine only) and failed to pay the remaining amount” The substitution as sought for read: “1st respondent paid an amount of Rs.6,421/- (six thousand four hundred and twenty one only) and failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.43,579/- (forty three thousand five hundred seventy nine only) along with interest” O.P.No.132 of 2007 was filed under Section 37(1) of the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. The affidavit filed in O.P.No.132 of 2007 reveals that the prayer sought for was to direct the respondents therein to pay the petitioner in the O.P. a sum of Rs.57,035/- and to direct the respondent to pay subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.43,579/- with interest at 16% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The very fact that the petitioner in the O.P. had sought payment of interest at 16% on the principal sum of Rs.43,579/- is proof that the pleadings, in para 3(c) of the O.P. to the effect that the 1st respondent had paid the loan amount of Rs.43,579/-, was erroneous and, if indeed the 1st respondent in the O.P. had paid the said loan amount, the question of the petitioner in the O.P. seeking repayment of Rs.57.035/- and interest at 16% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.43,579/- would not arise. As observed by the Tribunal such an amendment to the pleadings would not in any way affect or cause prejudice to the respondents in the O.P. i.e., the petitioner herein. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity or illegality of such a nature as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________ 04-03-2010 asp