HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4989 OF 2009 DATED: 17.11.2009 Between : N. Usha Rani … Petitioner And B. Venkatesulu … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4989 OF 2009 ORDER : The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendant/Revision petitioner. The suit was contested by the defendant and after settling the issues the trial has commenced and an affidavit has been filed by P.W.1 in lieu of his chief-examination. At that stage, the defendant/Revision petitioner filed I.A.No.63 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement by adding a paragraph as under: “3(a) That the allegations made in the plaint para No.5, 6, 7 are false and denied herein and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiff has issued the receipt to the defendant towards two promotes on 2.5.2005 for Rs.3,00,000/- and the said two promotes returned to the defendant, but the plaintiff has fabricated the previous transactions. This defendant submits that there were no demands made by the plaintiff for the payment and when the defendant did not borrow any amounts from the plaintiff and the question of demanding for the payment by the plaintiff does not arise and the defendant is an employee and women and taking advantage of the same the plaintiff claimed the excess rate of interest and the same has to be scaled down. Further the suit claim is also not correct and the present suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.” The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the Court below after hearing both the parties by order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Admittedly the trial has commenced in the suit. As per Order 6 Rule17 of C.P.C. as amended by Act No.22 of 2002 the power of Court to allow amendment of pleadings has been restricted and unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial no amendment of pleadings can be allowed after the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court in VIDYABAI v. PADMALATHA[1] while dealing with a case arising under similar circumstance held as under : “However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. If puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” The Court below while relying upon the above decision of the Supreme Court, dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. Even from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.63 of 2009 in O.S.No.54 of 2007, it is clear that the defendant could not offer any explanation for not raising the plea sought to be now raised by way of amendment before commencement of trial except stating that there was a bona fide mistake and that she came to know of it recently. The Court below was not satisfied with the said explanation offered by the defendant and thought it fit to disallow the proposed amendment. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. As the order under revision does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.11.2009 gbs [1] AIR 2009 SC 1433