IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5837 OF 2009 Between:- S.Adinarayana …Petitioner A n d Sure Krishnamurthy …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5837 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-06-2009 in I.A.No.1261 of 2006 in O.S.No.94 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for recovery of debt against the respondent herein in a sum of Rs.1,81,465/- . The respondent filed written statement opposing the claim. Subsequently, when the matter was pending trial, the defendant filed I.A.No.1261 of 2006 seeking amendment of the written statement to the effect that the defendant executed two pronotes in favour of one Pandurangaiah. The defendant kept a portion of the pronote blank and the defendant had no transaction with the plaintiff, who is a stranger and the said Pandurangaiah got the suit filed in collusion with the plaintiff after filling up the blanks. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would destroy the valuable right already accrued to the plaintiff. Rejecting the said contention, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application observing that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff and, on the other hand, the proposed amendment would help the Court to decide the matter effectively. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amount from the respondent/defendant alleged to be due under the suit pronote. According to the respondent/defendant, the plaintiff is a total stranger and he had no transaction whatsoever with him and he executed pronote in favour of one Pandurangaiah, leaving the relevant columns in the pronote blank at the instance of Pandurangaiah and subsequently Pandurangaiah, in collusion with the plaintiff, got the suit filed by filling up the blanks in the pronote. 5. The truth or otherwise of the said version is to be decided on evidence by the trial Court. Even in the original written statement, the defendant denied the suit transaction and made a reference to his trade transactions with Pandurangaiah and also execution of two empty pronotes and two empty cheques in favour of the said Pandurangaiah by way of collateral security for the medicines supplied by him in the course of business between the two. He further pleaded that he discharged the entire amounts due under the said transaction with Pandurangaiah and when he demanded return of the two pronotes, the said Pandurangaiah told that the prontoes and cheques were mixed up with other papers and he would return them as and when they are traced. The defendant seeks amendment of the written statement as indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application by adding certain paras and deleting few sentences in the original written statement. 6. A perusal of the original written statement and the proposed amendments would disclose that the defendant is not trying to putforward any new case so as to spring in a surprise on the plaintiff, but is only trying to amplify the scope of his defence pleaded in the original written statement. The proposed amendment does not change the cause of auction nor does it introduce any new case resulting in serious prejudice to the claim of the plaintiff. It is well settled that the defendant can raise all defences available to him under law even if they are multifarious. In the present case, the defendant is only seeking to enlarge the plea already raised by him in the original written statement. It does not in any way adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff in establishing his claim. On the other hand, it would help the Court in adjudicating the dispute comprehensively and effectively. 7. The decision in M/s MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO., LTD., AND ANOTHER V. M/s LADHA RAM AND CO.,[1] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case for the simple reason that the proposed amendment does not introduce any new case nor seek to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made in the written statement. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, allowing the proposed amendment, is held not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. It is needless to state the petitioner/plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement and raise all such contentions as are permissible under law. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Lrkm. [1] AIR 1977 SC 680(1)