ORDER : 1. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Pramod Nair on behalf of learned counsel Ms. Neharica Sahay, for petitioner and learned Counsel Sri. Chintan Chinnappa for the Caveator/respondent No.1. 2. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed. 3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The present petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4, challenging the impugned order passed on IA.No.4 in Commercial O.S.No.1317/2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking certain amendments in the plaint. 5. The plaintiff initiated the suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount. Prior to the commencement of trial, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to incorporate certain relief in the prayer column of the plaint. Objections came to be filed to the said application. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsels for both parties, the learned Commercial Court has allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to carry out the amendment by incorporating the prayers sought in addition to the already existing prayers in the plaint. It is this order that is questioned by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. 7. It is the vehement contention of learned senior counsel Sri. Promod Nair appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4, that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and the same deserves to be set aside, as it runs contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also contended that the amendment that is sought is in total contravention to the pleadings set forth and the relief sought in the original plaint whereby there was absolutely no relief that was sought against defendant No.1 and as the invoices are all against the other defendants and not defendant No.1. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is in contravention to the settled principles of law and the same is passed in a mechanical manner without applying its mind to the relevance of the amendment that is sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is in contravention to the settled principles of law and the same is passed in a mechanical manner without applying its mind to the relevance of the amendment that is sought by the plaintiff. After the defendant Nos.1 to 4 had put forth their statement of objections to one of the applications by taking a plea that no relief is sought against the defendant No. 1 and therefore the suit cannot be maintainable as against defendant No. 1, so also no relief could be granted against defendant No. 1. 8. It is also vehemently contended by learned senior counsel for the defendants that the Commercial Court has committed a gross error in not opining and coming to a conclusion as to why the amendment is required and whether it would change the nature of the suit, as the same is not answered, and what the trial Court has held is that the same would be decided in the course of trial. So, therefore, this finding or reasoning of the Commercial Court would not be the correct proposition for allowing the application for amendment as primarily the trial Court requires to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of proper reasoning that the amendment that is sought does not change the nature of the suit. Thereafter, only the application could be allowed whereas in the present case on hand, the commercial Court has come to a conclusion that the new facts that are brought before the Court by the plaintiff by way of amendment could be accepted as it can be decided after trial, which is seriously objected to by the learned senior counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 4. 9. It is also contended by learned senior counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 that when there is a change in the cause of action and a change in the nature of the suit, the same would have to be addressed by the trial Court if it is allowing the application or rejecting the application by a finding in the said order either to allow or to reject the application and not to keep it open to be decided after the trial. Therefore, it is contended that the Commercial Court has not followed the principles laid down for considering the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. 10. It is further contended by learned senior counsel that the plaintiff is now seeking to include a prayer to seek relief of the claim amount by way of joint and several liability, which was not initially the case of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had initially claimed several liabilities against the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and there was no claim made whatsoever in the prayer column as against defendant No.1. Therefore, on this ground also the application ought to have been rejected by the Commercial Court. 11. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that the reason for filing the application seeking amendment is stated to be a mere oversight by the plaintiff as per the affidavit annexed along with the application, which cannot be the reason for allowing the amendment to be carried out. 12. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the amendment now sought and introduced is a complete afterthought only with an intention to circumvent the inevitable rejection of the plaint, as the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have already filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. It is also contended by learned senior counsel that while allowing the application by the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has erroneously concluded that the errors and oversights by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is "emanated out of typographical errors." But it is not the case of the plaintiff that it is a typographical error, whereas it is the say of the plaintiff in the affidavit on oath that it is an oversight. Therefore, the trial Court has totally misconstrued and not understood the contention and the reason for the delay in filing the application seeking amendment and has also mechanically passed the order without going through the mandatory requirements of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. 13. Therefore, the trial Court has totally misconstrued and not understood the contention and the reason for the delay in filing the application seeking amendment and has also mechanically passed the order without going through the mandatory requirements of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. 13. It is also contended by learned senior counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 4 that the amendment is now sought to only fill up the lacuna that was created and not sought for initially and the defendants having taken such a plea in the objection statement to the application, are now, as an afterthought, trying to include these amendments in the plaint. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that the amendment now sought and which is allowed is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the case, as even according to the plaintiff he is not seeking any claim against the defendant No.1 as the invoices are all issued and shown to be issued by defendant Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, there is no relief sought against defendant No.1 in the prayer. Under the circumstances, the application ought not to have been allowed and the Commercial Court has allowed it without considering the facts and circumstances and the pleadings in the application which is contrary to the well settled principles of consideration of Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. On these grounds, he seeks to allow his petition and consequently to dismiss the application. 14. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Chintan Chinnappa appearing for the plaintiff, vehemently contends that there is absolutely no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court. No doubt in the prayer /relief of the plaint, it is categorically mentioned with regard to the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 as the invoices were issued by these defendants, which are sought for recovery of money. However, in the body of the plaint, the plaintiff has made allegations and claimed relief as regards the defendant Nos.1 to 4. No doubt in the prayer /relief of the plaint, it is categorically mentioned with regard to the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 as the invoices were issued by these defendants, which are sought for recovery of money. However, in the body of the plaint, the plaintiff has made allegations and claimed relief as regards the defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is also mentioned in the plaint with regard to the relationship and the contractual liability of defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 that they approached defendant No.5 for the purpose of procuring licenses and respective businesses and various agreements entered into by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 with defendant No. 5 and that defendant No.1 has enrolled their affiliate entities such as defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 and that the plaintiff has acted as a reseller to defendant No. 5 under the said arrangement. All these averments are made according to the learned counsel at paragraph Nos.6, 7, paragraph No.9, paragraph No.16. Paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 26 and also at paragraph Nos.30 and 31 and in other places. 15. It is the contention of learned counsel that even at paragraph Nos.35 and 36, it is clearly stated by the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were got issued notice by the plaintiff for recovery of the outstanding amount and defendant No.1 has issued a reply to the said notice of the plaintiff and hence defendant No.1 would be necessary to be included in the prayer column of the plaint for recovery of the amount. 16. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial Court has considered all these aspects and has come to the right conclusion that the amendment requires to be allowed, as there is no bar for amendment application to be filed and allowed, as it is filed at the pre trial stage. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the cause of action is made out for and against the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and that cause of action is the bundle of facts and not merely the relief sought in the prayer. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the cause of action is made out for and against the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and that cause of action is the bundle of facts and not merely the relief sought in the prayer. Therefore, even if the defendant Nos.1 to 4 contended that in the prayer column, defendant No.1 is not included and the relief is sought against only defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 for recovery of certain amount on the basis of the invoice and after the defendants have filed the statement of objections to the application where such a plea is taken, the same would not bar filing an application seeking amendment to include defendant No.1 in the prayer column to be jointly and severally liable to make good payment of the amount sought for in the plaint as in the body of the plaint he has already sought the relief and made defendant No.1 jointly and severally responsible. Under the circumstances, he contends that the commercial Court has rightly allowed the application and there is no illegality or perversity in such an order, and consequently he seeks dismissal of the application. 17. Having heard learned senior counsel Sri.Promod Nair for defendant Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri.Chintan Chinnappa for the plaintiff. The short point that arises for consideration before this Court is: 1. Whether the trial Court has committed illegality, perversity, arbitrariness in allowing the application seeking amendment to the plaint? 2. What order? 18. Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to the relief of the plaint by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount. There is also no dispute in the prayer column that the relief is sought against defendant Nos.2 to 4 and not against defendant No.1 and hence the application for amendment is filed. In the plaint, at paragraphs noted herein earlier, the plaintiff has categorically made certain allegations against the defendant No.1 right from paragraph No.6 with regard to the contractual obligations and agreements entered into by defendant Nos.1 and 2 with defendant No.5 and the plaintiff being a reseller of defendant No.5 and the notice being issued to all the defendants by the plaintiff and the claim is also made in the body of the plaint as against the defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to make the claim against the defendant No.1 in the prayer column as jointly and severally along with the other defendants and now after realisation on the basis of the statement of objections filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 has ventured to file this application seeking amendment to include defendant No.1 in the prayer column for joint and several liability along with the other defendant Nos.2 to 4. 19. While considering an application under 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, it is relevant for the Court to see whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit, or whether it would change the cause of action, or whether it would introduce a new case other than the case already made out by the plaintiff or whether the defendants would be in a totally different situation of defending a case that was not made out by the plaintiff at the first instance while filing the suit and whether such an amendment is barred by the law of limitation or whether it would cause injustice that cannot be compensated by way of costs to the defendants. 20. While considering all these aspects the trial Court has adverted not many of the paragraphs except paragraph No.46 but ought to have dealt with other paragraphs where the plaintiffs have made out clear case where in he is seeking some reliefs against defendant Nos.1 to 4 but the trial Court has committed an error in not providing a finding as to whether the amendment would change the nature of the suit or cause of action while allowing the application, at paragraph No.28 of the impugned order and as ordered the new facts that would be brought would not change the nature of the suit as it can be accepted and can be decided after the trial which in my humble opinion may not be correct reasoning and finding and that is not acceptable and sustainable by this Court. Nevertheless, be that as it may, on an overall reading of the plaint, the cause of action is not merely the cause of action pleaded in the particular paragraphs or in the prayer, but it is a bundle of facts. Therefore, the amendment that is sought would not change the nature of the suit so also it would not change the cause of action. Therefore, the amendment that is sought would not change the nature of the suit so also it would not change the cause of action. Of course, it would be upto the defendants to putforth the defence and make out a case for defendant No.1 to be not liable on the claim of plaintiff; the same could be accepted if proved. 21. Nevertheless, coming to the application on hand, the present impugned order allowing the application for amendment, in my opinion, would not change the nature of the suit, does not change the cause of action and the defendant can be provided an opportunity to defend. If he makes out such a case by proving that the defendant No.1 is not liable, the Court shall pass such an order by framing such relevant issues and it would be open for the defendants to raise such a plea at the time prior to the framing of the issues, if so advised. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER: 1. The petition is dismissed. 2. Impugned order passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com.OS.No.1317/2024 is sustained.