IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.2134 of 2009 Between: Bandi Sudhakar Reddy … Petitioner And: Sree Mahaveer Real Estates, & 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2134 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is ﬁled assailing the order dated 02.04.2009 in IA No.658 of 2008 in OS No.439 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein-ﬁrst defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents/plaintiﬀs, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein ﬁled suit against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction. The petitioner ﬁled written statement contesting the suit, inter-alia, contending that the plaintiﬀs have no right to cancel the power of attorney executed in favour of Urimi Venkata Seshaiah. Subsequently, when the matter came up for trial, the petitioner-ﬁrst defendant ﬁled IA No.658 of 2008 seeking permission to amend the written statement by adding the plea to the eﬀect that the alleged cancellation deeds are fabricated and concocted by impersonating the signatures of Bommisetty Satyanarayna, Jaladanki Srinivasulu and Yaramka Sankaramma and so the alleged cancellation of general power of attorney are not true and genuine and the said documents are fabricated. 4. A perusal of the original written statement would go to show that the petitioner-ﬁrst defendant has disputed and denied the alleged cancellation deeds, but in general terms and the purport of the proposed amendment is only to make a speciﬁc denial of the genuineness of the said documents. The proposed amendment is only in the nature of elaboration of the plea already taken in the original statement. The proposed amendment does not therefore cause any prejudice to the contentions of the plaintiffs. 5. It is well settled that it is open to the defendants to raise multifarious defences. In fact, the petitioner- ﬁrst defendant has not raised any new or additional ground of defence but is only elaborating the original defence already raised in the written statement. The question as to whether or not the documents i.e., cancellation deeds are genuine or not is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper to permit the parties to place on record all their pleas so that there can be a complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner/ﬁrst defendant is therefore permitted to amend the written statement as proposed. The respondents/ plaintiﬀs are at liberty to ﬁle re- joinder, if they choose to in response to the proposed amendment of the written statement. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, IA No.658 of 2008 stands allowed. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.11.2011 bss