THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :5915 of 2009 DATED:27.06.2011 Between: Surla Jaggunaidu. ..... PETITIONER And Surla Chinnammalu & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.03.2009, in I.A.No.6/433 of 2009 in O.S.No.74 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-1st defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking permission to amend the written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit-O.S.No.74 of 2000 against the petitioner-1st defendant and the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant for recovery of arrears of maintenance. Defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After necessary issues were settled, the trial of the suit was taken up. Plaintiff’s side evidence was completed. During the course of defendants’ evidence, 1st defendant filed I.A.No.433 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement by inserting paragraph No.3 by adding certain words which are in the nature of typographical mistakes in the deed of compromise petition and also in describing the exact location of extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land which according to him was given to the plaintiff for her maintenance. 4. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that after the amendment of CPC by the Amendment Act, 2002 the parties cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings after the trial has commenced by virtue of the proviso contained in Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 5. The trial Court overlooked the fact that by virtue of Section 16 (2) (b) of the Amendment Act, 2002 the amended provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI CPC do not apply to the pleading filed before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2002, which came into force on 01.07.2002. The plaint in this case was filed in the year, 2000 and the written statement was filed on 16.08.2000. The pleadings in this case are therefore filed prior to 01.07.2002, the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. 6. In a decision reported in EDLA SHOBHA RANI v. YEGURLA RAMBABU AND OTHERS [1], this Court held that the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC have no application to the pleadings filed before 01.07.2002. The same principle was reiterated in AKULA RAJAIAH AND OTHERS v. KANNAMALLA KRUPAMMA AND OTHERS[2]. Inasmuch as the pleadings in the present case are filed much prior to 01.07.2002, the date on which the Amendment Act came into force, the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC have no application to the present case. The dismissal of the main application on the ground that the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars the proposed amendment after commencement of the trial, is therefore unsustainable. Even otherwise, the proposed amendments are only in the nature of correcting either the typographical error or elaborating the plea already taken, specifying the location of the land of Ac.0.30 cents which is said to have been given to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently I.A.No.433 of 2009 stands allowed and the petitioner-D1 is permitted to amend the written statement as proposed. It is open to the respondent herein to file a rejoinder if he is so advised and both parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any, pertaining to the proposed amendment. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year, 2000, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the same at an earlier date, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 27th June, 2011. Tsy [1] 2005(2) ALD 40 [2] 2005(2) ALD 41