JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral): - The order will dispose of this petition under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, directed against the orders of learned Sub Judge (I), Shimla in Civil Suit No. 44/1 of 1998 dated 9.8.2002. 2. It appears plaintiff, respondent herein, filed a suit against the defendant HP. General Industries Corporation and its Managing Director, petitioners herein, praying for a decree of Rs.1,80,600/-along with interest and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from forfeiting the property and appropriating the security furnished by the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff was: 4. Tenders by the defendant-Corporation were invited for the supply of empty bottles. The defendant was the successful tenderer and an order was placed for supply of various sizes of empty bottles. Security of Rs.60,000/- 10,000/- and 5,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant-Corporation in terms of the agreement. Thereafter, certain other additional orders were placed and additional security was furnished by the defendants. The plaintiff asked for refund of the security amount of Rs.1,05,000/- in the year 1992 but such refund was not made. It is in this background that the plaintiff filed this suit, as noticed above. 5. This suit was resisted by the defendant-Corporation and the allegations were controverted. It was admitted that the plaintiff did deposit security of Rs.75,000/- against the supply order given to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff consistently defaulted in making supplies in accordance with the schedule. This situation created crisis and forced the defendant-Corporation to take supply from the market at higher rates. As the plaintiff violated the terms and conditions of the contract agreement, therefore, the Corporation was within its rights to forfeit the security amount in terms of the contract agreement. 6. When the case came up for recording the evidence of the plaintiff before the trial Court, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, saying that in fact security was not deposited in cash. There was an open and running account between the parties. The securities in fact were not deposited in cash but the same were adjusted in the payment, for supply of empty bottles, which were due to the plaintiff between May 1992 to 1996. There was an open and running account between the parties. The securities in fact were not deposited in cash but the same were adjusted in the payment, for supply of empty bottles, which were due to the plaintiff between May 1992 to 1996. Despite resistant by the defendants, the application was allowed by the learned trial Court holding that the amendment would not change the nature of the case and such as amendment would help in proper determination of the question involved in the suit. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The amendment, Mr. Balkrishan, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, changes the nature of the suit and is against the foundation laid in the plaint. Such amendment could not have been permitted by the learned trial Court. 9. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relying upon Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others, AIR 2002 SC 559 submits that this revision petition is not maintainable. The argument is that even if the amendment was unjustified then such plea can be taken in the appeal, if the occasion arises, after the decision of the suit. 10. In Dharam Dev, it was observed that that there cannot be a situation where the proposed amendment, when allowed, would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice so as to fall under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code. Their Lordships further observed that if the suit is ultimately decided against the defendant he would have a chance to take up the points before the appellate Court. 11. In view of the ratio in Dharam Dev case the present petition, in my view, is not maintainable and dismissed as such. 12. It is clarified that the defendant-Corporation shall be entitled to take all the defences which may be available to Corporation, in view of the amendment of the plaint, in his amended written statement. It also goes without saying that if ultimately case is decided against the defendant he shall be entitled to raise this question before the appellate Court. 13. No order as to costs. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.3.2003. The records of the case be remitted back forthwith so as to reach their on or before the date fixed.