JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: - This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 18.6.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, moved by the petitioner/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present controversy, are that the petitioner has instituted a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereafter referred to as the respondents) for decree in the sum of Rs.3,65,388/- on account of supply of essential commodities to respondent No. 1. The other respondents are President, Vice-President, Members, Ex-Administrator of respondent No. 1 and Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. On failure of the respondents to pay the due amount, registered legal notice demanding payment is stated to have been served on respondents No. 1 and 9 but the payments were not made. The respondents contested the claim and, inter alia, raised the objection that the suit is bad for want of statutory requirement of notice under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge on 14.5.1998 framed issues one of which was based on the objection that the suit is bad for statutory requirement of notice under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Such issue (issue No. 2) was treated as a preliminary issue. After the parties had led evidence when the suit was fixed for consideration of the said preliminary issue, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code was moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint seeking to add "a copy of the said notice was also delivered to the Registrar, defendant No. 10" to the existing para 5 of the plaint. The application was contested by the respondents on the ground that the averment sought to be added by the proposed amendment are totally false and misconceived, the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna at this stage and the amendment, if allowed, will change the entire nature of the suit and the respondents will suffer irreparable loss. The learned District Judge dismissed the application by the impugned order. The aggrieved petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The learned District Judge dismissed the application by the impugned order. The aggrieved petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant material on record. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the amendment prayed for is merely clarificatory because while averring service of notice on respondents No. 1 and 9 it could not be mentioned that a copy of the notice was delivered to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies also as is required under Section 76 of the HP. Co-operative Societies Act, 1971, therefore, the amendment deserved to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, it was contended for the respondents that primarily the amendment cannot be allowed in view of the amended provisions of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and secondly, the amendment is not called for determination of the controversy between the parties. 7. It may be pointed out that certain amendment has been made in Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 to restrict the scope of amendments. The amended rule came into force with effect from 1.7.2002, therefore, it calls for examination whether the amended Rule will apply even to the pleadings and applications for amendments which were pending at the time of enforcement of the Rule. 8. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 reads as under :- "16. Repeal and savings. (1)i- (2) .................. (b) the provisions of rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and by section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and Section 7 of this Act 9. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order. 6 of the Code as amended by the Amending Acts shall not apply to any pleading which has been filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Amending Act of 1999 and Section 7 of the amending Act of 2002. Section 7 of the Amending Act of 2002 had brought about the amendments in Rule 17, therefore, Rule 17 as amended by Section 7 of the Amending Act of 2002 will apply prospectively and not to the pleadings which are already filed. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the amendment could not have been allowed even in view of the amended provisions of Rule 17, is without any merit and substance. 10. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is a Society and other respondents are its President, Vice President, Ex-Administrator and respondent No. 10 is the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In view of the provisions of Section 76 of the HP. Co-operative Societies Act, 1971, no suit can be instituted against a Society or any of its Officers touching the constitution, management or business of the Society until the expiration of two months of a notice in writing stating the cause of action, name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief claimed, delivered to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies or left at his office and the plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been delivered. 11. It is specifically averred in existing para 5 of the plaint that registered legal notice was served on respondents No. 1 and 9. However, there is no averment/statement in para 5 or any other para of the plaint that such notice was delivered to or left at the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent No. 10) also. The petitioner claims having delivered a copy of such notice to the Registrar, respondent No. 10 and, therefore, wants to amend the plaint as proposed so that the averment regarding delivery of copy of notice to respondent No. 10, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is made in the plaint which is at present missing. The petitioner claims having delivered a copy of such notice to the Registrar, respondent No. 10 and, therefore, wants to amend the plaint as proposed so that the averment regarding delivery of copy of notice to respondent No. 10, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is made in the plaint which is at present missing. In these circumstances, the proposed amendment appears to be bona fide and in view of the provisions of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, as referred to above, such an averment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties. 12. While considering the amendments of pleadings Court is not supposed to go into the question as to whether the amendment is based on false facts which is a question which can be gone into at the trial. : 13. The learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the parties had been given opportunity to lead their evidence, therefore, the amendment was not called for ignoring the fact that in the absence of a statement in the plaint about service of notice on respondent No. 10 as required under Section 76 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1971, no amount of evidence could cure the defect which is capable of being rectified only by way of amendment of the plaint. 14. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, the learned District Judge has acted illegally in exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 15. As a result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint as proposed, is allowed but subject to cost of Rs.500/-. Costs to be paid on or before the date to be here in after fixed for appearance»of the parties before the trial Court.16. The parties, through their learned Counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1.5.2003.