THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4830 of 2010 Date of Order:04.03.2011 Between: Punjab National Banik and another ..Petitioners and M/s.Iswarya Foods (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4830 of 2010 ORDER :- In the suit being O.S.No.1099 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, the petitioner/3rd defendant filed I.A.No.844 of 2009, praying the Court to receive its additional written statement. On dismissal of the said I.A., by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, by order, dated 17.09.2010, the present revision is filed. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,54,550/- along with subsequent interest at 24% per annum, from the date of suit till the date of realization, against the petitioner/3rd defendant and two others. After filing of written statement by the defendants and after trial was commenced and when the suit is coming up for the evidence of the petitioner/3rd defendant, the petitioner/3rd defendant filed the present I.A., praying the Court to receive the additional written statement. It was stated by the petitioner/3rd defendant in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. that at the time of filing written statement on behalf of the 3rd defendant, they could not give proper instructions as the relevant record was mixed up with the other records and could not be traced out, and recently they could trace the relevant record relating to the suit transaction and, therefore, to clarify and place before the Court, the exact facts and related documents for proper appreciation of the matter, it is necessary to file additional written statement. The petitioner/3rd defendant, thus, prayed the Court below to receive the additional statement. The 1st respondent/plaintiff resisted the petition, by filing counter. The Court below, having considered the respective stand of the parties, held that the petitioner/3rd defendant did not state in its petition as to on what aspects, it wants to clarify, and what documents, it wants to place before the Court, and that the petition is also silent as to what instructions the 3rd defendant could not give at the time of filing of written statement and what relevant record was mixed up with other records. The Court below further held that as per the new amendment of Civil Procedure Code, the parties may seek amendment of pleadings only before commencement of trial, and even if the petitioner takes a plea that the suit was filed before such amendment, yet it cannot be permitted, because the trial has commenced and the matter is coming up for the evidence of the petitioner/3rd defendant. Accordingly, the Court below dismissed the petition, by the order under revision. Hence, this civil revision petition. Head the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision and other material available on record. As can be seen from the order under revision, the trial of the suit has commenced and the matter is coming up for the evidence of the petitioner/3rd defendant. At that stage, the petitioner/3rd defendant came up with the present petition, stating that at the time of filing written statement, relevant record was mixed up with other records and as such proper instructions could not be given and as the relevant record pertaining to suit transaction could be traced out recently, it is necessary to file additional written statement, so as to clarify and place before the Court the exact facts and relevant documents, for proper appreciation of the matter. It is to be noted that the petitioner/3rd defendant, except stating that the relevant record was mixed up with other records at the time of filing written statement, did not clearly state as to what was the relevant record that was mixed up with other record. The petitioner/3rd defendant even did not furnish any details as to what documents it wants to place before the court and on what aspects, it wants to clarify. In the absence of any such details and more so, when the trial has already commenced and the suit is coming up for the evidence of the petitioner/3rd defendant, the petitioner/3rd defendant cannot be permitted to file additional written statement, so as to cover its lapses. The Court below, thus, rightly dismissed the present I.A. filed by the petitioner/3rd defendant, and I am of the considered opinion that the order under revision does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J March 4, 2011 Lmv