SEKAR Vs. SUBRAMANIYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, on the basis of the promissory note, dated 2.7.2001, alleged to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. The revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt of consideration in the written statement. P.W.1 was examined and the revision petitioner/defendant also filed a proof affidavit. At that point of time, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the pleadings to the effect that in the cause of action para, due to typographical error, the place of execution of the promissory note was mentioned as 'Pallipalayam', instead of 'Aragalur' and therefore, the amendment application has to be allowed. The said amendment application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) Mr. L. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was filed, after the commencement of trial, and, no reason has been stated by the respondent for not filing the application before the commencement of trial, except, stating that, due to typographical error, the place of execution of the promissory note was wrongly mentioned. Moreover, after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, post trial amendment cannot be entertained, unless, sufficient cause is shown by the plaintiff for filing the application for amendment. Hence, the Court below erred in allowing the application for amendment. The learned counsel, further submitted that in the plaint, except in para No. 5, viz., the cause of action para, he has not stated the place of execution of the promissory note any where and in evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that the promissory note was executed at Aragalur and it was wrongly mentioned as Pallipalayam Village. Therefore, in the absence of any clarification in the evidence, the respondent cannot be permitted to amend the plaint by substituting the place of execution of the promissory note.

(3.) Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner by allowing the application for amendment, as the revision petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note and therefore, whether the promissory note was executed at Pallipalayam, or at Aragalur, that makes no difference and hence, the Court below has rightly allowed the application. The learned counsel further submitted that by reason of the amendment, the respondent is also not indulging in forum shopping, whether the promissory note was executed at Pallipalayam or at Aragalur, the same Court retains the jurisdiction and therefore, in the absence of any prejudice, being caused to the revision petitioner, he cannot object to the amendment. The learned counsel further submitted that though the application for amendment was filed, after the commencement of trial, such amendment cannot be rejected on that ground, and the Court must take into consideration the nature of amendment, and the prejudice that would be caused to the other side, by allowing such amendment. In this case, by changing the place of execution of the promissory note, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the Court below calls for no interference. The learned counsel finally submitted that in case of amendment, being rejected, the respondent may be permitted to prove the place of execution of the promissory note to fortify his case.