ORDER : 1. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 26.06.2019 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017. Under the impugned order, the request for amendment of plaint was denied by the learned trial Court. 2. Respondent No. 1 in this revision is the sole defendant in the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are also plaintiffs in the suit. A curious question has arisen in these proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of both parties in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs together filed O.S. No. 19 of 2017 seeking for recovery of money along with interest and costs and the suit is laid on the basis of two promissory notes. The allegations in the plaint are that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy has a wife Smt. Y. Prameelamma/4th plaintiff and they have one son/1st plaintiff and two daughters/2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. During his lifetime from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 01.05.2016 and thereafter once again borrowed Rs. 1,76,000/- on 04.05.2016 and on both occasions, the defendant executed promissory notes in favour of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. On 16.07.2016 Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy died and to him the plaintiffs are the legal representatives. The defendant failed to repay the debt amount during lifetime of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy or to the plaintiffs despite demands. It is on these averments the plaint was filed. 4. The sole defendant Sri S. Bala Nagi Reddy filed his written statement denying borrowal of money and execution of promissory notes in favour of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. It is stated that land in Survey No. 54 in an extent of Ac. 14.50 cents situated in Koratamaddi Village was obtained by this defendant on lease for cultivation from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Because of low rainfall and insecticides and other reasons, the defendant suffered heavy loss in his agriculture. As a consequence, he could not pay the lease amount. However, to his surprise, on receiving the suit summons, he understood that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy created suit pronotes and they are false. Because of low rainfall and insecticides and other reasons, the defendant suffered heavy loss in his agriculture. As a consequence, he could not pay the lease amount. However, to his surprise, on receiving the suit summons, he understood that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy created suit pronotes and they are false. In fact Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy himself was in financial crisis and he incurred in various debts because of marriage of his daughters and he had sold away his properties towards discharge of his own debts. It is further stated that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy never demanded this defendant for repayment and this defendant had no need to discharge the suit debt since he neither borrowed money nor executed the promissory notes. With such contentions, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. It seems that while the suit was set for trial and recording of evidence had not yet commenced, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission for amendment of the plaint. Consequential amendments that are required to be carried out in the plaint in the event of permission for amendment is granted are also mentioned in the petition. Sri Y. Raghava Reddy/1st plaintiff/revision petitioner swore an affidavit in support of the petition. It is mentioned that both the pronotes mentioned in the plaint were the pronotes standing in the name of himself/1st plaintiff and they were executed by the defendant on borrowing money from him and these events took place during the lifetime of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. His father obtained crop loan of Rs. 1,00,388/- and there was loan waiver by Government and the bank authorities directed him/revision petitioner to obtain succession certificate since Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy died. In the backdrop of above facts, the deponent gave the necessary documents to his advocate requesting him to file a petition for obtaining succession certificate for the purpose of bank and a suit for recovery of money for the pronotes. However, the advocate by mistake filed the suit not only in the name of the 1st plaintiff but also in the name of other legal heirs of late Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. The matter that was to be included in succession certificate petition was included in the suit also. However, the advocate by mistake filed the suit not only in the name of the 1st plaintiff but also in the name of other legal heirs of late Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. The matter that was to be included in succession certificate petition was included in the suit also. Since the deponent was in a hurry to institute the suit and to seek attachment of property before judgment, the mistake committed by the advocate was not noticed. Now for rectification of this, the petition is filed. 6. The sole respondent to that petition is defendant and he filed a counter denying the petition mentioned averments. It is further stated that while the suit is coming up for trial, this petition is filed at a belated stage with all false and frivolous allegations to cover up the lacunae in filing the suit. At Para No. 3 of the counter, it is mentioned that he never borrowed any amount under the alleged promissory notes either from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy or from his son/1st plaintiff. That there is gross negligence on part of the petitioners in filing the suit absurdly and only with a mala fide intention to harass this defendant in one way or other. The proposed amendments would change the entire nature and complexion of the suit and the pleadings of the parties to the suit and such amendment shall not be allowed under any circumstances. Proposed amendment will lead to great loss and hardship to the respondent/defendant. For these reasons, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. On hearing both sides, the petition for amendment of plaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court stating that plaintiffs cannot be permitted to deviate from the original pleadings under the guise of mistake and it is not a simple typographical error that they are trying to seek for rectification and proposed amendment will result in deviation from the original plea and will change the cause of action and mistake was committed by the plaintiffs and they could not take advantage of their own wrong and cannot introduce a new version. With such reasons, the petition was dismissed. 8. With such reasons, the petition was dismissed. 8. As against the said orders, the 1st plaintiff in his revision contends that trial in the suit has not yet commenced and therefore, proposed amendment would not cause prejudice to the opposite party and an opportunity to file written statement could also be granted. That a perusal of both the pronotes clearly show that they stand in favour of this revision petitioner and other plaintiffs have nothing to do. That there was a bona fide mistake that crept in the office of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the counsel adopted the measure of cut and paste, which resulted in this mistake as the facts to be narrated in Succession O.P. were also brought into the plaint. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are against the facts and law and it failed to exercise proper jurisdiction and sought to reverse the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that mistake committed by the counsel cannot be allowed to cause harm to the case of a client and the nature of the suit does not change at all as it still remained a suit on the very same promissory notes and amendments of this nature were always permissible and the learned counsel also cited legal authorities in support of his contentions. 10. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent/defendant submits that while the entire case set up in the plaint is about Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy lending money, the proposed amendment totally deviates from it and tries to show Sri Y. Raghava Reddy/revision petitioner as the creditor and the proposed amendment will seriously prejudice the contentions taken in the written statement by the defendant. It is further argued by the learned counsel that along with the plaint, the verified affidavit was also filed by the plaintiffs and he cannot cover up his gross negligence just by throwing blame on the counsel. According to learned counsel for respondent, the proposed amendment would fully change the cause of action and the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and law and therefore, this Court need not interfere with such reasoned order. 11. According to learned counsel for respondent, the proposed amendment would fully change the cause of action and the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and law and therefore, this Court need not interfere with such reasoned order. 11. On considering the submissions on both sides and on perusal of the record, the following point falls for consideration: “By refusing the proposed amendment in the plaint whether the trial Court improperly exercised its discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 12. Point: The following facts are not in dispute: The suit is filed for recovery of money. The plaint for recovery is based on two promissory notes. There are list of documents contained in 4th page of the plaint showing the filing of both the pronotes and the death certificate of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy and the Family Members Certificate. As per the averments in the plaint, those pronotes were executed by the defendant. It is mentioned in the impugned order and it is also mentioned in the sworn affidavit of the revision petitioner filed before the trial Court that both the pronotes indicate the name of this revision petitioner as the person from whom the defendant allegedly borrowed money. It is in the context of above material, the plaint was prepared and filed. The cause title in the plaint shows the name of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy as died and represented by his legal representatives and then S. Nos. 1 to 4 were given for four plaintiffs. This cause title by itself would show that the suit was filed on the premise that the two promissory notes filed along with the plaint are the promissory notes of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy (late). The plaint before being registered was always subjected to scrutiny by the office of the Court. Had the plaint been properly scrutinized an objection would have been taken at the threshold itself pointing out the fact that promissory notes do not stand in the name of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy and they stand in the name of Sri Y. Raghava Reddy/1st plaintiff. No query was raised in that regard. Thus, it is clear that the office of the trial Court failed to scrutinize the plaint in the manner that is required by law. No query was raised in that regard. Thus, it is clear that the office of the trial Court failed to scrutinize the plaint in the manner that is required by law. Order XIV Rule 1(5) C.P.C. shows that at the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall read the plaint and written statement and hear the parties or their pleaders and ascertain from them the material propositions of fact or law on which the parties are at variance and then frame and record the issues for the purpose of reaching to right decision in the case. In the case at hand, both sides submitted arguments and the issues in that suit were framed. If really the trial Court had bestowed its attention in verifying the plaint along with the documents filed with it and if had heard the party or his counsel, the mistake that was available would have come to light there itself. The fact that issues were settled with plaint showing one thing and suit pronotes showing another thing by itself would indicate, no such real legal exercise took place before the trial Court and without any application of mind the issues seems to have been settled. Now that when the suit is coming up for trial, the mistake that crept in was realized. Since examination of witness either in person in the Court or by presentation of examination in chief by way of affidavit has not yet occurred, it is clear that trial in the suit has not yet commenced [vide Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409 ]. Therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. does not fall for consideration. Then what remained is the discretion of the Court in permitting or refusing permission to the parties to amend their pleadings. The purpose for permission is that the proposed amendments would help the Court in determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In the case at hand, the real question in controversy between parties is a set of two promissory notes. The plaint alleges that the defendant borrowed money. The defendant alleges that he did not borrow and they are forged and fabricated. In the case at hand, the real question in controversy between parties is a set of two promissory notes. The plaint alleges that the defendant borrowed money. The defendant alleges that he did not borrow and they are forged and fabricated. Thus, the real controversy between the parties being two promissory notes and they are physically available and is noticed by both parties and the trial Court, the substance of the controversy remained same both in the existing plaint as well as in the plaint after inserting the proposed amendments. Therefore, the proposed amendments would hover around only subsidiary facts. The subsidiary facts are who lent and who borrowed. The person who borrowed remained unchanged even in the amended plaint. What could change is the name of the person who lent. While the suit pronotes indicate the name of this revision petitioner, the cause title in the plaint and the narration of facts in the body of the plaint failed to mention his name as one who lent money. In effect, to this extent, one could say that the plaint is filed in the name of a wrong plaintiff. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are not parties to both the suit pronotes. Their presence in the suit is unnecessary. Thus, seeking to omit them from the suit since they are wrongly shown as plaintiffs is a matter of course. Then what remained is that the original plaint reads that the debt was borrowed from late Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, but the proposed amendment would show that it was borrowed not from him but from his son Sri Y. Raghava Reddy. That alone was the real amendment that takes place, if permitted. Since the defendant’s contention both in his written statement as well as in the counter filed before the learned trial Court is that he never executed these two prnotes and they are fabricated and false documents and that he never borrowed money either from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy (late) or from Sri Y. Raghava Reddy, one cannot really say that there could be injury to the defence raised in the written statement in the event of allowing the proposed amendment. 13. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cites for his support Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628 . That was a case where the suit was laid for recovery of money. 13. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cites for his support Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628 . That was a case where the suit was laid for recovery of money. While the suit was supposed to be filed in the name of a company, it was wrongly filed in the name of a person and evidence also commenced. It was at that stage mistake was realized and then amendment was sought for. On appreciating the facts that were available before their Lordships, they pleased to hold that the mistake was inadvertent and it was a mistake on part of the counsel and such mistakes should always be permitted to be amended. Two full paragraphs in the plaint were permitted to be amended by their Lordships. It was held that even if a party is found to be negligent or careless, the Court should see that its power to grant permission to amend plaint be exercised pragmatically and its endeavour shall be to see that whether the proposed amendments would enable it to decide the real controversy in appropriate manner and whether it would serve the ends of justice. With that view, their Lordships upset the concurrent orders of the Courts below and permitted the amendment. Learned counsel also cited Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra, (2018) 2 SCC 132 . That was a case concerning Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and one of the objections taken by the opposite party was that the plaintiff having verified the plaint he cannot be allowed to take a new plea by way of amendment. On considering the whole gamut of law, their Lordships refused to agree with such contention. Going by these guiding ratios when this Court looks at the case before it, it is clear that the documents furnished in the form of promissory notes by this revision petitioner through his learned counsel were brought to the Court by the learned counsel along with a plaint, which the counsel prepared which ought to have the name of the creditor as the sole plaintiff, was prepared with a cause title which is found to be incorrect going by the fact that pronotes indicate living human but the cause title and the body of the plaint indicate about dead man Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy and his legal representatives suing as plaintiffs. Thus, this error apparent from the record is not an error on part of a citizen, but it is an error on part of the counsel. The fact that it is an error on part of the counsel is the contention of the revision petitioner and nothing contrary to it could be contended by the respondent. The law is well known that imprudence of a counsel cannot lead to injure the right causes of citizens. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he had entrusted two briefs to his counsel one is the suit on pronotes and the other is an original petition for succession certificate. Along with this petition, a copy of the order dated 07.09.2017 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2017 is also filed, which shows the bona fides of the revision petitioner in entrusting the matters to his counsel. The fact that there is order in S.O.P. No. 1 of 2017 is not challenged by the respondent. In the light of the facts that are on record and in the light of the law that has been available, when this Court views the order of the trial Court, it finds it difficult to agree with the reasons offered in the impugned order. Mere change in the name of the plaintiff and consequential change the sentences do not amount to change of cause of action as long as the basis for the suit which are promotes speak otherwise. Therefore, learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the real controversy in the suit never got changed and the peripheral facts would never harm the substantial dispute on facts and the proposed amendment would only lead to set right the peripheral facts. Thus, the trial Court improperly exercised its jurisdiction and failed to grant the relief that was needed. Such grave infirmity in the order of the trial Court should be set right in this revision by this Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is merit in this revision. Point is answered in favour of the revision petitioner. It may be noted that Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendments but on terms which would balance the justice. There is merit in this revision. Point is answered in favour of the revision petitioner. It may be noted that Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendments but on terms which would balance the justice. Since the whole clumsiness was out of the actions of the clients and their counsel resulting in application before the trial Court and revision before this Court, the amendment to the plaint would be permitted on a condition that revision petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent/defendant to compensate the inconvenience. 14. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 26.06.2019 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 and therefore, I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 stands allowed. This shall be carried out only when 1st plaintiff/revision petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent/defendant and file proof of it before the trial Court within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.