JUDGMENT : Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel representing the sole respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.3, Kamrup (M) in Commercial Suit No.131 of 2022. 3. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondent praying for recovery of Rs.1,05,06,611.26 along with interest @ 12% per annum. 4. At one point of time, petitioner was maintaining good relationship with the respondent. They are relatives of each other. In the years 2018-19, the respondent gave a loan of Rs.4,90,000/- to the petitioner. On 16.07.2019, the petitioner gave a loan of Rs.5,25,000/- to the respondent. In the Financial Year 2019- 20, the petitioner showed the machinery and raw materials of his factory to the respondent at a price of Rs.1,02,61,961.1. The respondent promised to pay the said money within 31.03.2021. During the Financial Year 2019-20, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.11,55,385/- to the petitioner. Thus, Rs.93,90,085.26 remained to be paid. In fact, if the aforementioned Rs.4,90,000/- was deducted from the aforesaid amount, the respondent was to pay an amount of Rs.88,29,085.26. The suit was filed for recovery of the said amount. 5. The respondent admitted that he took the loan of Rs.4,90,000/- from the petitioner. But denied that the petitioner ever gave a loan of Rs.5,25,000/- to him on 16.07.2019. 6. The respondent was also denied that he had ever purchased the factory and the raw materials from the petitioner at a price of Rs.1,02,61,961.1. 7. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to amend the plaint. According to the petitioner, the amendments need to be made on the basis of the averments made in the written statement filed by the respondent. 8. The respondent claimed to be a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was carrying a business under the name and style of “Rajiv Bhandar”. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to make the Hindu Undivided Family of the respondent as Defendant No.1 and the respondent himself as Defendant No.2. Apart from that, the petitioner wanted to incorporate some paragraphs substituting the existing paragraph nos.2 and 8. The petitioner also prayed for amendment of paragraph nos. 4 and 5. 9. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to make the Hindu Undivided Family of the respondent as Defendant No.1 and the respondent himself as Defendant No.2. Apart from that, the petitioner wanted to incorporate some paragraphs substituting the existing paragraph nos.2 and 8. The petitioner also prayed for amendment of paragraph nos. 4 and 5. 9. The trial court held that if the amendments are allowed, then the nature and character of the suit will change causing prejudice to the respondent. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 11. I have found that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prayer of amendment in proper perspective. The proposed amendments are actually minor amendments and which will never change the nature and character of the suit. 12. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.3, Kamrup (M) in Commercial Suit No.131 of 2022 is set aside. 13. The Revision petition is allowed accordingly. The petitioner shall file an amended plaint before the trial court. After that, the trial court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law.