IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5154 of 2009 Between: G. Ravinder .. Petitioner AND Gourisetty Surender and others .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to against the order dated 07-09-2009 in I.A. No.1332 of 2009 in O.S. No.546 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, Medak District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri S. Girimoji Rao, Advocate for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5154 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Girimoji Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. This revision is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy in I.A. No.1332 of 2009 in O.S. No.546 of 2003, dated 07-09-2009. The plaintiff/revision petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition for amendment of the plaint. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement, dated 19-01-1998 in respect of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff desires to include a statement said to have been made by the 1st defendant during cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel in C.C. No.175 of 1999 on 29-11-2001, in the plaint. The 1st defendant was claimed to have stated in C.C. No.175 of 1999 about the mention in the civil suit about the agreement, the cheque and the promissory note in that portion of his earlier deposition. The defendants resisted the request for such amendment claiming that such amendment cannot be permitted when the suit is coming up for trial. The trial Court passed the impugned order stating that though an amendment could have been allowed at any stage within the parameters laid down by Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a limitation was imposed on the scope for a pleading by Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure excluding any evidence by which the material facts, on which the party relies on, are sought to be proved, from being part of any pleading. The trial Court, therefore, felt that the attempt to include in the plaint the alleged admission by the 1st defendant in his earlier deposition in the criminal case, cannot be permitted and hence, it dismissed the petition with costs. The plaintiff contends herein that the trial Court ought to have permitted the amendment, as it was no way barred by Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure and as the amendment no way changes the nature of the suit claim and no way causes prejudice to the defendants. The amendment of pleadings permitted by Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only to the extent that such amendments are necessary for purposes of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and as rightly relied on by the trial Court, Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by its specific language excludes all matters of evidence from being part of any pleading, which can only be a statement in a concise form of the material facts, on which the party pleading relies for his claim. It is seen from the affidavit in support of I.A. No.1332 of 2009 herein that the plaintiff was attempting to include in the plaint the alleged admissions by the 1st defendant in his evidence in the criminal case to probablise that notwithstanding such admissions, the defendants never reconveyed the suit schedule property as per the terms of the agreement between them. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is based on the agreement and the alleged admission of the 1st defendant in his evidence in C.C. No.175 of 1999 will only be a circumstance that can be relied on by the plaintiff to probablise the truth of the agreement relied on by him and the admission by itself is not a material fact on which the claim of the plaintiff is based. As such, the trial Court refusing to include such evidentiary details in the plaint by way of amendment, cannot be considered improper or unreasonable. It is, however, needless to state that if the alleged admission of the 1st defendant in his cross-examination on 29-11- 2001 in C.C. No.175 of 1999 is true and is borne out by the relevant record, such deposition can be always confronted to the 1st defendant, when he enters the witness box during the trial of the suit and relied on for probablising the truth and tenability of the suit claim. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs subject to the above observation. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-03-2010 Svv