HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3781 OF 2008 DATE:25-02-2011 BETWEEN Velpula Suresh Babu …Petitioner AND Smt.Dhulipala Vijaya Lakshmi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3781 OF 2008 ORDER: Defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the dismissal order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam in I.A.No.977 of 2008 in O.S.No.64 of 2004, dated 14.8.2008 filed for amendment of the written statement. Plaintiff-respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,97,100/- basing on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant-petitioner herein. Contesting the suit, the defendant-petitioner herein filed a written statement taking the plea that the entire suit transaction and execution of the suit promissory note has taken place at Vijayawada only and that he never went to Machilipatnam and never borrowed the amount and never executed the suit promissory note at Machilipatnam as alleged in the plaint. Later the defendant-petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. to amend the said plea with regard to the place of execution of the suit promissory note, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court. It is not disputed that the evidence on plaintiff’s side is closed and some suggestions were also made about the genuineness of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note, which was denied by the witnesses appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. When the matter is posted for the evidence of defendant, the impugned I.A. was filed. In view of proviso to Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C., the impugned I.A. cannot be entertained and the same can be dismissed only on that ground, instead of that, the lower Court unnecessarily gone into the aspect of jurisdiction and gave a finding with regard to the execution of the suit promissory note in the I.A. In view of the same, the entire finding recorded by the lower Court in para 7 of the impugned order is set aside and the dismissal order is confirmed on the ground that the petitioner-defendant has not established that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the said issue before commencement of the trial and therefore, he is not entitled to amend the written statement. It is needless to say that irrespective of the plea taken by the parties, it is the duty of the Court to decide the point of jurisdiction on the evidence adduced by the parties. In view of the same, the petitioner is at liberty to adduce such of the evidence to prove that the suit promissory note has not been executed at Machilipatnam but it was executed at Vijayawada. With the above observation, the revision is dismissed. It is needless to say that the lower Court has to decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2011 Tsr.