THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2200 of 2011 (Dated: 15-11-2011) Between: D.Solman Raju S/o Yelisha …Petitioner A n d K.Ramesh S/o P.Dastagiri ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2200 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23-02- 2011 passed in I.A.No.686 of 2010 in O.S.No.134 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant seeking amendment of the written statement. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- basing on a promissory note dated 7-5- 2004. He pleaded in the plaint that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 7-5-2004 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in his favour at Proddatur. He further pleaded in the plaint that despite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the amount under the promissory note. 3. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. He took the plea in the written statement that he borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- on 7-5-2001 by executing a promissory note and discharged the said debt after an year. He further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff altered the digit “1” in the year “2001” in the suit pronote and filed the suit to save limitation. Paragraph (6) of the written statement need to be noted and it is thus:- “6. It is further submitted that the defendant is shocked to receive summons from this honorable court in the above suit O.S.No.134/2007 and after receiving the summons, this defendant made enquiries and to his mental agony and anguish, he found that the Plaintiff filed the suit on the pronote dated 07-5-2001 which is already discharged and time barred pronote by making material alteration on dates i.e., 07-5-2001 as 7-5-2004. The plaintiff altered digit No.1 in the year 2001 as 2004 and filed the suit to save limitations for his unlawful gain. It is very easy to alter digit `1’ with digit `4’ and the same is clearly visible to naked eye. Even the Hon’ble Court may compare the alteration of digit `1’ with digit `4’ both are available in same pronote under Section 73 of Evidence Act. So, there is a material alteration purposefully made by the Plaintiff as dates of pronote to save limitation and for his unlawful gain. The Plaintiff did not give legal notice to the defendant before filing the suit so as to enable the defendant to give a clear and suitable reply. Hence, there is material alteration as dates of the suit pronote to save limitation and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. This defendant is not liable to pay any amount on the time barred pronote”. 4. The trial Court settled the issues. The plaintiff commenced his evidence by placing on record his affidavit in lieu of chief- examination. At that stage, the defendant moved I.A.No.686 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Rule 29 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/Defendant to amend his written statement in the lines mentioned below, in the interest of justice. Particulars of amendment:- In page 2 of para 5, of the written statement in 6th line, after the words, due under the pronote, the following sentence may be added by way of amendment. 1) In the presence of two persons, namely (1) Gattupalli Chalapathi S/o G.Chinnabbai, resident of D.No.16/1192, Masapeta, Kadapa city and (2) Dabbu Chandra Sekhar S/o D.Chnnamaiah, resident of D.No.16/1267, Akula Veedhi, Kadapa city, in the house of the plaintiff. The above persons accompanied the defendants, at his request”. 5. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the defendant could not mention the names of the persons who are present at the time of making repayment of the amount due under the pronote dated 7-5-2001 due to inadvertence. After coming to know the mistake of non-mentioning the particulars of the witnesses, he moved application. 6. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition on the ground that the defendant moved application after lapse of nearly three years and that too after filing the chief examination affidavit of the plaintiff. 7. The learned Senior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendant moved application at a belated stage and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 23-2-2011. Hence this revision. 8. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 01-7-2011. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the respondent through counsel appearing on his behalf in the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice to the respondent through counsel appearing on his behalf in the trial Court and filed proof of service. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner inadvertently could not mention the names of the witnesses in whose presence the amount due under the pronote dated 7-5-2001 has been discharged. A further submission has been made that the petitioner after coming to know about the mistake, moved the application seeking amendment of the written statement by way of adding the names of the witnesses in whose presence the amount has been paid. In a way, her contention is that by way of amendment no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1) Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V and Ors.[1] 2) Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr.[2] 3) Usha Balasaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.[3] 4) Bollepanda P.Poonacha and Anr. V. K.M.Madapa[4] 11. In Bollepanda’s case (4 supra), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has wide discretion in permitting the parties to amend their pleadings. The Court, must, however, exercise discretion in a judicious manner. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition except mentioning that due to inadvertence he could not mention the names of the persons in whose presence he discharged the amount due under the pronote dated 7-5-2001, no other reason has been offered. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2007. Affidavit in lieu of chief examination has been placed on record by the plaintiff in the year 2010. For nearly three years, the petitioner-defendant remained silent. The affidavit filed in support of the petition does not contain any acceptable reasons for non-mentioning of the names of the witnesses in the written statement. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the amendment petition. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15-11-2011 RAR [1] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2511 [2] AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2832(1) [3] AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1663 (1) [4] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2003