IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.780 of 2009 Between: Chintapalli Nookanna ..... PETITIONER AND Asavalli Ramana .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.780 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.1541/2005 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam for recovery of money of Rs.1,00,000/- under promissory note dated 14.12.2002. In the said suit, the plaintiff was examined himself as PW 1 and on his behalf PWs 2 and 3 were examined and closed the evidence. After closing the evidence on behalf of plaintiff, the matter was coming up for adducing evidence on behalf of defendant. At that time, the defendant filed an application in I.A.387/2008 under Or.8 Rule-9 CPC to permit him to file additional written statement taking a plea that he has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 16.03.2004 i.e. prior to filing of the suit under the said promissory note dated 14.12.2002 in the presence of the elders. The said fact could not be mentioned in the written statement and therefore, he would like to file an additional written statement. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on 11.12.2008, against which this Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was not at all taken any such defence in the written statement about the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- prior to filing of the suit. I am of the opinion that when the petitioner/defendant has not taken any such defence about the alleged payment of money even prior to filing of the suit, after the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is over, such plea cannot be allowed to be taken by taking a new plea, that too about the facts said to be existed prior to filing of the suit. The said application is only an after thought and is nothing but to drag on the suit. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 16.12.2010 Dsr