IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.114 of 2011 Between: Dasari Rajeswara Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.S.Lalitha Kumari .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.114 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.706/2006 on the file of the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. He filed I.A.492/2010 under Or.6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement by adding a lengthy paragraph. The plaintiff opposed the said application for amendment of the written statement alone. The Court below by the impugned order dated 16.10.2010 dismissed the said application on the ground that application filed by the defendants seeking amendment of the written statement incorporating a paragraph which is running for one and half pages is after commencement of the trial and after examining two witnesses for the plaintiff. In fact PW 1 was examined partly and at that time the application was filed seeking amendment of the written statement. The Court below further observed that such pleadings are not at all taken earlier and therefore, the petitioners are not diligent and the proposed amendment is after commencement of the trial which is impermissible under law. I am of the opinion that the petitioners filed the said application after the lapse of three years of filing of the suit, that too in the midst of the examination of the witnesses. Under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC 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 the trial. In the instant case, the petitioner has not furnished any explanation as to why the plea was not taken earlier. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 04.03.2011 Dsr