APHC010392982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2053/2024 Between: Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu ... Petitioner and Neduri Leela Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam ... Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao This Court made the following: 2 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A. No. 295 of 2022 in O.S.No.34 of 2019 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Razole, whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and Sec. 151 of CPC was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, seeking leave of the Court to amend the written statement, by adding para-10(a) after para 10 as follows: “Para 10(a): This plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 is the cousin to son-in-law of Jr. Maternal aunt (Mother’s sister) of this plaintiff. Thus the present plaintiff and the plaintiff in OS NO. 36/2019 are inter-related. Two promissory notes were forged and fabricated and filed two suits for huge amounts in short intervals as follows: Suit Number Name of the plaintiff pronote date filed for OS No. 34/2019: N.L.Veera Venkate Subrahmanyam 11.10.2016 42,16,666/- OS No. 36/2019: P.Naga Raveendra Babu 31.10.2016 24,34,666/- Thus this suit and the suit in OS No.36/2019 were created by Mutyala Srinivasarao in the name of respective plaintifs through forgery & fabrication. It is improbable to believe that one man borrowed such huge amounts in one month from inter-related persons. There is no such necessity to the defendant & the respective plaintiffs have no such capacity. The defendant is specifically denying the capacity of the plaintiff. To disprove the case of plaintiff, it is just and 3 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 necessary to club or try both suits together to find out the truth. The plaintiff has no right to proceed independently. The plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 & Mutyala Srinivasarao are proper and necessary parties to the suit for an effective adjudication of all the matters in dispute. The difference in age of ink in the alleged promissory notes also disprove the case of plaintiff.” 3. The question involved in this revision is whether the amendment of the written statement can be permitted after the defendant has completed part of his evidence. 4. A conjoint consideration of the material on record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,16,666/- with interest against the petitioner/defendant. It is alleged that on 11.10.2016, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest which is subject matter in OS No. 34/2019. 5. The defendant submitted a written statement dated October 17, 2019, categorically refuting the assertions made in the plaint, asserting that the suit is time-barred and that the promissory note in question is a blatant forgery, alongside the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties. The promissory note has been materially altered. Furthermore, the written statement articulates that the defendant’s spouse obtained portions of Rs.13,00,000/- from Mutyala Srinivasarao on three distinct 4 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 occasions in 2016. The defendant’s family subsequently remitted the aforementioned sum on eight additional occasions, culminating in a total of Rs. 16,46,000/- paid to Mutyala Srinivasarao. There exists no debtor- creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The promissory note is a spurious and fabricated document that is unenforceable under the law. 6. Admittedly, in the present suit before the trial court, the plaintiff examined PW-1 and PW-2 and marked one document as Ex.A1. On the defendant’s side, DW-1 was examined, and documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B6. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned and is still pending for further evidence on the side of the defendant. 7. At this stage of the present suit, the defendant’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking the leave of the court to amend the written statement referred to above. 8. At the time of enquiry, no oral documentary evidence was adduced on either side. The Senior Civil Judge, Razole, however, dismissed the said application by order dated 15.03.2024 therefore the defendant are before this court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In a suit for recovery of money, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeks to insert paragraph 10(a) in the written statement 5 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 at a stage where the plaintiff’s evidence is closed and the 1st defendant’s evidence is already completed, with the matter currently posted for further evidence on the defendant’s side. This raises a pertinent issue as to whether such an amendment to the pleadings is permissible at this advanced stage of the trial. 10. The primary consideration before this Court is, whether the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real issue in controversy and whether its allowance would result in undue prejudice to the opposite party. Furthermore, it must be examined whether the present case warrants interference with the order of the trial court by invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/revisionist submitted that the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the defence in favour of the respondent, despite the respondent’s failure to present a substantial or legitimate defence or any triable issues. The amendment sought by the revision petitioner does not constitute a new cause of action. However, the trial court, without considering this, dismissed the application, against which the plaintiff/revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition: The learned counsel for the petitioner 6 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 referenced the judgment passed in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh1, wherein it was held thus: “10. Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. That apart, it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case.” 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the present petition and argued that the petitioner had earlier filed two interlocutory applications namely, I.A. No. 330 of 2021, 1 (2006) 6 SCC 498 7 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 seeking to club the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2019 with O.S. No. 34 of 2019, and I.A. No. 329 of 2021, seeking to implead Muthyala Srinivasarao as Defendant No. 2 by way of an amendment to the plaint. Both applications were dismissed with costs. It was further contended that the present petition has been filed only to unnecessarily delay the proceedings of the suit. 13. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to refer to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is extracted below. Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 1908- “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties : Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 14. The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) introduced a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, laying down a strict bar against allowing amendments to pleadings once the trial has commenced, unless the court is satisfied that: Despite due diligence, The party could not have raised the matter before commencement of 8 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 trial. The language of the proviso is couched in mandatory terms. It clearly restricts the court’s jurisdiction to entertain an amendment application once trial has begun, unless the jurisdictional pre-condition of due diligence is satisfied and specifically recorded. 15. Ordinarily, an amendment to a written statement after the commencement of trial is permissible, but not as a matter of right. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, once the trial has commenced, the proviso to Rule 17 imposes a restriction, and the court may allow such amendment only if it is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party seeking the amendment could not have raised the matter prior to the commencement of trial. The power to allow amendment is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Moreover, the proposed amendment should not introduce a wholly new or inconsistent case or alter the fundamental nature of the defence. 16. It is now well-settled through authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that filing of affidavit-in-chief or commencement of recording of evidence marks the commencement of trial, and any amendment thereafter must strictly pass the test of due diligence. 17. Based on the above settled position of law, the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial. The plaintiff's 9 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 evidence was already completed, and the first defendant had also completed his evidence. The case was posted for further evidence of the defendants. The applicant/ defendant failed to demonstrate any circumstance indicating due diligence, nor was any explanation offered to justify why the amendment could not have been sought earlier. And there was no finding possible, nor pleaded, to show that the party was genuinely unaware or unable to raise the plea at the appropriate stage. 18. Moreover, the intent behind the 2002 amendment was to curb the abuse of amendment provisions by parties who seek to protract litigation by belatedly introducing new facts or shifting their stand mid-trial. 19. It is indisputable that the respondent commenced legal proceedings to recover amount based on the promissory note executed by the defendant on 11.10.2016, marked as Ex.A-1. This action primarily hinges on the assertion that the plaintiff lacked the requisite capacity to disburse such sums. 20. In a suit for the recovery of an amount based on a promissory note is initiated, should the defendant contest the execution of the note, the court will typically evaluate the legitimacy of the promissory note alongside the defendant's assertions. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving both the execution of the promissory note and the corresponding 10 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 debt owed, while the defendant is entitled to present evidence to challenge the claim and dispute the note's validity. 21. On an earlier occasion in 2021, the petitioner/defendant had already filed two interlocutory applications, which were both dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner even challenged those orders in revision, no stay was granted by this Court and the matters are pending. This shows that the petitioner had enough opportunity at that time to raise all his objections or make necessary applications. However, he did not file the present amendment applications at that stage. 22. Now, the petitioner is coming forward with fresh applications at a very late stage, after the trial has already commenced. In fact, the plaintiff’s evidence has been completed, and even the first defendant’s evidence has concluded. The case is now at the stage of further defendant’s evidence. This clearly shows that the petitioner had enough time earlier but failed to act with due diligence. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he is filing one application after another only to delay the proceedings and drag on the litigation, and not for any genuine reason. Such an approach is against the spirit of the law and should not be permitted. The petitioner, through an amendment to paragraph 10 (a), is pursuing multiple forms of relief, particularly at a juncture when the matter is scheduled for further evidence of defendants side. 11 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 23. Thus, the trial Court has correctly exercised its jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the amendment. This rejection is in strict conformity with the mandatory proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 24. Accordingly, the rejection of the amendment deserves to be upheld, as it is legally sound and supported by both statutory mandate and judicial precedent. 25. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J 21st April, 2025 cbs 12 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Civil Revision Petition No.2053 of 2024 21st April, 2025 cbs 13 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2053 of 2024 Between: Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu, S/o Narayana Murthy, aged about 52 years, Ponnamanda Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. ... Petitioner and Neduri Leela Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o Koteswara Rao, Business, aged 38 years, R/o Geddada Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal,E.G.Dt. ... Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21-04-2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals? 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment? ___________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J 14 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 *THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM +C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024 % 21-04-2025 Between: Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu, S/o Narayana Murthy, aged about 52 years, Ponnamanda Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. ... Petitioner and Neduri Leela Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o Koteswara Rao, Business, aged 38 years, R/o Geddada Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal,E.G.Dt. ... Respondent <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy ^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao ? CASES REFERRED : 1. (2006) 6 SCC 498 15 JS,J C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024