IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.874 OF 2011 Between: Yalla Laxmaiah @ Lachi Reddy …Petitioner A n d Yalla Ramaiah @ Ram Reddy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.874 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2011 in I.A.No.841 of 2010 in O.S.No.74 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices and no representation is made. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction based on an exchange deed dated 04.08.1993. The petitioner/ defendant filed a written statement inter lia contending that “the plaintiffs have created the exchange deed said to have been executed by the defendant for the purpose of knocking away the valuable rights over the property held by him”. When the matter came up for trial, the petitioner/defendant filed the present I.A.No.841 of 2010 seeking amendment of the written statement by adding the plea to the effect that “the suit document dated 04.08.1993 is a forged, concocted and brought into existence for the first time for the purpose of grabbing the suit land” at the end of para 2 of the written statement. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the earlier plea in the written statement would cover the proposed amendment also. 4. The defendant even in the original written statement categorically pleaded that the plaintiffs have created the exchange deed for the purpose of knocking away the defendant’s right over the suit property. Thus, according to the defendant, the suit document is a created document even as per the averments in the original written statement. Now, he seeks to elaborate the same by specifically pleading that the suit document is forged, concocted and brought into existence for the purpose of grabbing the suit land. As the specific allegation of forgery is not raised in the original written statement, the petitioner/defendant is seeking amendment of the written statement. Inasmuch as the defendant has denied the genuineness of the said document even in the original written statement and also specifically pleaded that it was a created document, the proposed amendment is only in the nature of elaboration or expansion of the original plea. The proposed amendment does not introduce new case nor does it cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. It is well settled that the defendant can raise multifarious defences. In the present case, the defendant is only seeking to elaborate the defence already taken by him in the original written statement. 5. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the proposed amendment can be permitted so that there can be an effective adjudication of the dispute by taking into account all the contentions raised by both parties. 6. The impugned order is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th June, 2011 Lrkm