HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.267 of 2011 Date: February 14, 2011 Between: Batti Murali Singh, S/o.Krishna Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: business, Sundar Metal Stores, Opp:Kamati Street, Nellore Town … Petitioner And Rajaputra Om Raj Singh, S/o.Nagaraj Singh, aged about 48 years, Occ:business, R/o.D.No.14/125, Mannemvari Street, (Anamvari Street) Nellore Town … Respondent Order: Aggrieved of the order dated 15-12-2010 passed in I.A.No.1035 of 2010 in O.S.No.401 of 2008 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, SPSR Nellore District, defendant in the said suit filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of money. As per the averments in the plaint, petitioner herein borrowed money by executing a promissory note. Written statement was filed by the petitioner denying borrowing of money and executing promissory note. It appears, in the suit, trial has already commenced and a witness has also been examined; at that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.1035 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to add the following paragraph to the written statement: “After Para no.2 the Para no.2(a) “The defendant herein entered sale agreement with the plaintiff on 01- 04-2003 in order to purchase the property of the plaintiff situated in D.No.13/447 and 448. As per the conditions of the sale agreement the defendant herein has to pay a sum of Rs.6,410/- in order to clear the loan account no.OSLPS 2003025 in Syndicate Bank, Nellore Branch. As per his directions the plaintiff paying the installment amount instead of paying Rs.6,410/- this defendant paid several amounts and as per calculation also this defendant deposited more amount and instructed the plaintiff to credit the extra amount to the amount of the suit promissory note and accordingly this plaintiff withdrawn all the amounts deposited by the defendant.” The court below, by impugned order, on the ground that the proposed addition is in violation of the provision under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and it will change the nature of the suit, rejected the application of the petitioner. In this revision petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that court below ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner in view of interests of justice and it did not exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in proper perspective. By virtue of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 explanation is added to Order VI Rule 17, which reads as under: “Provided 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 the commencement of trial.” In view of the said explanation, unless plausible cause is shown for not taking steps for amendment before the trial has commenced, amendment cannot be permitted. In this case, it is to be noticed that the suit if of the year 2008 and it is for recovery of money. Petitioner has filed his written statement denying borrowing of money from the respondent and executing promissory note. It is also to be noticed that trial has already commenced and a witness has also been examined; at that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.1035 of 2010. In that view of the matter, the court below, by recording valid reasons, rejected the application of the petitioner. It appears, the petitioner has filed the said application only to drag on the proceedings. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the court below, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) February 14, 2011 MRR