1 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 APHC010513452023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2669/2023 Between: 1. MENTA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. LATE NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-5-108, LAKSHMIPURAM, STONEHOUSE PET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONDA SATYANARAYANA, S/o. late Venkata Narayana, Aged about 63 years, R/o. Lakshmipuram, Stonehouse Pet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the order passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.N0.662/2023 in 0.S.No.42/2020 dated.14.09.2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.42/2020 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the Revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P RAJESH BABU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.662 of 2023 in O.S.No.42 of 2020, whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amending his written statement. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,32,609/- from the petitioner/defendant along with subsequent interest. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.662 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to amend the written statement. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that at the time of filing his written statement, he gave partial details with regard to the payments made by him and as he secured statement of account and other documents which helps him in strengthening his case, he filed the said interlocutory application to amend his written statement. However, the trial Court while observing that the petitioner filed the said application at the fag end of the proceedings which not only change the nature of the pleadings but also take back the suit to the stage of framing of issues, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. When this petition came up for hearing on 17.10.2023, this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.42 of 2020 on the file of I 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the revision petition, initially for a period of four weeks, which was thereafter extended from time to time. 4. Heard Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.662 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, with a plea to amend his written statement i.e. to add the following paragraph in his written statement in No.6 after the words ‗to the plaintiff‘, in 5th paragraph of 2nd page: ―viz., dated 15-02-2008 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.13-02-2009 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.15- 02-2010 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.19-02-2011 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.19-02-2012 for Rs.2,70,000/- and dt.19-02-2013 for Rs.2,70,000/- in total Rs.16,20,000/- paid to the plaintiff towards the amont of Rs.15,00,000/- received from the plaintiff. Further this defendant also paid on 13-02-2014 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.25-02-2015 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.13-02-2016 for Rs.2,70,000/-;Dt.25-08-2016 for Rs.1,65,000/-, Dt.11-02-2017 for Rs.2,70,000/- dt.28-10-2017 for Rs.1,69,764/- dt.12-02-2018 for Rs.2,50,000/- and dt.01-09-2018 for Rs.1,50,000/- in total Rs.18,14,764/- and also paid Rs.2,25,000/- on 16-02-2019 to plaintiff in respect of the amount received from the plaintiff for Rs.10,00,000/- on 25-08-2015. Thus in total this defendant paid Rs.27,25,000/- to the plaintiff in the presence of witness by name GhaliNataraja of Nawabpet, Nellore. So, the version of the lainitfftrhat the plaintiff has lent Rs.27,18,000/- to this defendant on 05-07-2019 and executed the promissory note in his favour is totally false and created for the purpose of getting wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to this defendant‖ 6. For better understanding of the case, Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereunder: 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 ―17. Amendment of pleadings.—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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.‖ 7. It can be understood from the above that Order VI Rule 17 consists of two parts viz., the first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. The Hon‘ble Apex Court, in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh1, observed that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The Court further observed that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC restricts the Courts from permitting an amendment to be allowed in the pleadings of either of the parties, if at the time of filing such application, the trial has already commenced. However, the Court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It further observed that commencement of trial must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses, 1 2006 6 SCC 498 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As such, it is not that once the trial has commenced, the amendment cannot be allowed. It can be allowed if it is necessary and if due diligence is shown by the party applying for amendment as to why it could not be made earlier. The Hon‘ble Apex Court, in Harish Chandra Bajpai Vs. Triloki Singh2, held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC only limits the scope of jurisdiction of the Court to permit amendment of pleadings after the commencement of the trial and the proviso does not create an absolute bar or shut out the entertaining of an application for amendment, post commencement of trial, but only permits it to be allowed if the party seeking amendment shows that, in spite of due diligence, he could not raise the plea previously. 8. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt.Ltd. &Anr3, after considering numerous precedents with regard to the application of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, culled out the following principles: ― 1) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause in justice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word ―shall‖, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 2) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of 2 AIR 1957 SC 444 (1) 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. 3) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if – (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit: (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. 4) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – I. The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. II. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. III. The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.‖ 9. The proposed amendment sought to be introduced by the petitioner/defendant, if allowed, would materially change the nature and character of the defence originally pleaded and would amount to setting up a new and inconsistent case altogether. The details of alleged payments from 2008 to 2019 now sought to be introduced were never pleaded earlier, though the petitioner took more than one year to file his defence and two years to come into the witness box to examine himself as D.W.1. Such an amendment, therefore, would introduce a fresh cause of action. As laid down under Order 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2669 of 2023 VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if amendments are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties should ordinarily be allowed, the same cannot be permitted when they result in prejudice or injustice to the other side or when they change the fundamental nature of the case. Permitting such an amendment at this stage, i.e. at the fag end of the case, would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner failed to prove that despite exercise of due diligence he could not show the details of the payments in the written statement filed before the trial Court. Therefore, applying the settled principles of law in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amendment sought by the petitioner/defendant was rightly rejected by the trial Court and the order dated 14.10.2023 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.662 of 2023 in O.S.No.42 of 2020 need not be interfered. 10. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:30.10.2025 Gss