THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5125 of 2006 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.23 of 2006 in O.S.No.583 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dated 26.06.2006 allowing a petition for amendment of the plaint on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The petition was for incorporating certain additions in paras 3 and 5 to specify the present rent to be Rs.3,355/- per month and that the revision petitioner had become a defaulter by not paying the rents wilfully for the months of May and June, 2003. The plaintiffs claimed that originally it was not stated specifically in the plaint about the present rate of rent and default in payment of rents of May and June, 2003, incorporating which, by way of amendment, will not change the nature of the suit, more so, as the same was specified in the valuation para of the plaint and in calculating the amount claimed towards arrears of rent. The request was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to introduce a new case and when the rent was mentioned to be Rs.1300/- at the time of filing of the suit, it cannot be amended as Rs.3,355/- obviously intending to take away the case from the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The trial Court passed the impugned order holding that even in the plaint originally filed, the particulars of the arrears of rent at Sl.No.5 in para 4 page 7 of the plaint mentioned the rent payable by the defendant to be Rs.3,355/- per month from 01.10.2001 to 28.7.2003. It is only to incorporate the same in the body of the plaint that the present application is made and the same cannot be considered as introduction of a new case. The trial Court also observed that the defendant will have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and to raise an appropriate issue on the question of quantum of rent, which has to be necessarily proved by the plaintiffs. Therefore, considering that no prejudice would be caused on allowing the amendment, the trial Court directed the same to be permitted on payment of costs of Rs.500/- before a specified date, in default of which the petition shall stand dismissed. Challenge to the said order in this revision is on the ground that the proposed amendment changes the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and causes prejudice to the defendant and, therefore, the jurisdictional error in the order has to be corrected. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code enables the Civil Court to allow any party to amend the pleading at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and as may be necessary and all amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties are liberally allowed. The prohibition under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC against request for amendment after the commencement of trial has no application to the facts of the present case as the trial has not commenced. It is seen from the copy of the plaint furnished by Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in his usual fairness, that the particulars of the rental arrears mentioned in the plaint specifically stated in item No.5 that the rent per month from 01.10.2001 to 28.7.2003 was calculated at Rs.3,355/-. The said quantum of rent specified in that paragraph was not mentioned in the other paragraphs relating to the suit claim and the plaintiffs seek now to incorporate the same in the plaint by way of amendment. It is true that in the written statement originally filed by the revision petitioner, it was specified that the agreed rent was only Rs.1,300/- per month including Rs.950/- towards rent and Rs.350/- towards amenities and the defendant did not agree for enhancing the rent even to Rs.2,000/- and though the written statement so specifically pleaded in 2004 itself, the request for amendment was made only in 2005. However, the question whether the claims of the plaintiffs in this regard are acceptable or not will have to be determined in the suit on merits on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence to be placed before the Court by the parties, basing on broad human probabilities and the plaintiffs need not be prevented from raising a plea, more so when even the trial of the suit has not commenced. The fact that the additional pleas were introduced by way of amendment will always remain for consideration of the Court in assessing the dependability of the claims of the plaintiffs and as observed by the trial Court, the defendant will also have an opportunity of filing an additional written statement in this regard denying the claims of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court that the amendment is such as should be allowed, as it causes no prejudice to the revision petitioner, cannot be deviated from and there are no reasons or grounds to presume that the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in its judicial discretion is perverse or unreasonable. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 22nd July, 2010. PNV