Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. It appears that the name of Respondent No. 2 was inadvertently added. The name be deleted, as prayed. Arguments on application for amendment of the memo also heard. There appears to be some mistake in the name of parents and address of Dilbagh Singh, who is the respondent. Correction has now been supplied. Accordingly, complaint may be amended. Amendment to this effect is allowed. Arguments on third point also heard. It is submitted that respondent committed fraud and he should not get Rs.10,000/-. Both the Fora below have decided the case against the petitioner. Arguments do not have any merit. The same be retained. List on 23-08-2012, as already fixed.