M.PENTAMMA Vs. B.SESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff is directed against the orders dated 12.09.2011 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram passed in IA.no.221 of 2011 in OS.no.215 of 2007 filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for short) for permission to amend the plaint by substituting the word promissory note wherever it occurred with the word agreement.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity). Though the matter is adjourned twice for hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, there is no representation for the defendant. Therefore, no submissions are made on behalf of the defendant. I have perused the material record.

(3.) The plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- on the foot of a document referred to in the plaint as a promissory note. The defendant having filed written statement is resisting the suit. When the suit is at the fag end of the trial, the plaintiff had filed the aforementioned application for amendment of the plaint inter alia contending as follows: - At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff understood that the suit document evidences lending of money and acknowledgement of liability and that the suit document is a promissory note. During the trial, the said document was marked subject to objection. Whatever be the nomenclature of the document and the pleading in regard to the document, the contents of the document are to be given effect. She was advised that the suit document cannot be treated as a promissory note since it does not possess the characteristics of a promissory note as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It also does not contain the recitals to call it as a deed of mortgage. On such a document a suit for recovery of the amount lent is maintainable, as the said document evidences the loan advanced there under. In order to make things plain and fair, it has become necessary to seek amendment of the plaint for substitution of the word promissory note wherever it occurred in the plaint with the word agreement. There are no legal impediments for recovery of the suit amount on the said document. The plaintiff is willing to pay necessary stamp duty and penalty, if any, required to be paid on the said document. The amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action and would not prejudice the case of the defendant.