Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS petition assails the order dated 13.12.2012, allowing the application of the plaintiff, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in for short, 'the C.P.C.') to amend memo of plaint to replace the earlier plaintiff, namely Jang Bahadur son of Jyoti Parshad with M/s. Avichal Handloom Industries, through its Karta Jang Bahadur son of Jyoti Parshad. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,66,629/ - along -with interest @ 18% per annum from 313.2008 till its realisation was filed by Jang Bahadur son of Jyoti Parsad against the present petitioners, alleging therein that the defendants had obtained a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/ - in two installments of Rs. 2.5. lacs each on 28.1.2005 and 31.1.2005. Thereafter, an agreement was reduced into writing on 31.3.2008 signed by both the parties i.e. Jang Bahadur and the defendants as per which the defendants had to return the aforesaid amount with 18% interest per annum. It is alleged in the plaint that since the defendants did not return the amount of loan alongwith interest despite legal notice, suit had to be filed and in para No. 8 of the plaint, it is mentioned that cause of action to file the suit arose to the plaintiff on 31.3.2008 when the agreement was reduced into writing. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 05.2.2011. As per the petitioners, written statement was filed by them on 16.5.2011 and on the same date, issues were framed.
(2.) THE plaintiff had tendered affidavits of two witnesses, namely PW -1 and PW -2 on 23.2.2012 and thereafter the case was fixed for their examination by the petitioners. On 28.8.2012, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint to change the title of the suit alleging that the amount was advanced by M/s. Avichal Handloom industries.
(3.) THE application was contested by the defendants but it has been allowed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioners would not suffer any prejudice as nature of the suit would remain the same and the effect of amendment would be considered when evidence is led by both the parties.;