THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5208 of 2007 Date of Order:16-11-2010 Between: Motukuri Rambabu ..Petitioner and Malla Anjaneyulu ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5208 of 2007 Oral order: The petitioner/defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli dated 12-09-2007 in dismissing I.A.No.253 of 2007 in O.S.No.212 of 2005 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the written statement. According to the petitioner, during the cross-examination of P.W.1 his counsel found promissory note amount of Rs.15,000/- was altered to 85,000/- and the said copy of the pronote was not served to him; therefore, he could not read the material alteration thus necessitated to amend the written statement at para 4-A as under: “The defendant submits that he came to know at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1 (Malla Venkateswara Rao) wrongly mentioned as ‘Malla Anjaneyulu’ that the suit promissory note was materially altered 1 to 8. Therefore, the plaintiff altered the figure Rs.15,000/- to Rs/85,000/-. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed in limini.” On contest made by the respondent/plaintiff, the said I.A. was dismissed. Hence this revision. It is not disputed in the written statement filed by the defendant he stated that the pronote was not filed and he signed on the empty pronote; therefore, he wants to say pronote was altered. After closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence when the matter is coming up for the evidence of the defendant’s side he filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and thereafter it underwent 15 adjournments for his presence for the purpose of cross-examination on the affidavit filed by him. In stead of appearing for the purpose of cross-examination the above I.A. came to be filed. In view of the same, the learned trial judge rightly held filing of the above application is only to protract the proceedings. The discretion exercised by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 16-11-2010 Murthy