IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5901 of 2009 Between: K.Satya vathi and another. … Petitioners And G.Dharma Raju. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5901 OF 2009 ORDER:- Petitioners/defendants are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in dismissing I.A.No.2118 of 2009 filed to receive additional written statement on behalf of the second defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2004, dated 12.11.2009. Plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,36,500/- basing on a promissory note and a bond executed by both the defendants. First defendant is the wife and second defendant is her husband and they filed separate written statements. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked certain documents including Ex.A3 cheque and Exs.A12 to A14 documents and when the suit is coming up for evidence of the defendants, they changed their advocate and on his advice, the defendants filed present I.A.No.2118 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to receive additional written statement filed by the second defendant stating that when preparing with the case it was noticed by the Advocate that though the necessary denial of liability is made in the written statement, elaborate description of events were not placed on the records presumably due to brevity of pleadings by his erstwhile advocate. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff opposing the petition contending that several events, which are now pleaded under the additional written statement, were never pleaded nor raised earlier. Even during the cross-examination of P.W.1 the aspects, which they want to plead by way of additional written statement, were not put to him. Therefore, the additional written statement with the respective case is only an afterthought after long lapse of five years of filing of the suit. In fact, in the reply notice also there is no such plea taken by the defendants, which is now sought to be raised, by way of additional written statement. The advocate who is the brain behind came up with the fresh pleadings, which cannot be permitted. The lower court after extracting the pleadings, which is now sought to be raised, in Para 10 of the order observed that in the original written statement filed by the first defendant adopted by the second defendant, there is no semblance of plea, which is now sought to be amended, in the earlier pleading. In the original written statement filed by the second defendant, which is now pleaded for amendment, new pleas were put forth by him by filing the additional written statement and the said additional written pleadings or amended pleadings cannot be allowed, which alter the character of the plea originally taken. It is further observed that no suggestion was made to P.W.1 when he was cross-examined, that Ex.A3 cheque and Ex.A12 to A14 documents were created and fabricated and the said theory in the additional written statement is contrary to the pleas taken and hence, the suggestions made to P.W.1 cannot be permitted and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. In the original written statement filed by the first defendant, it is pleaded, that with a view to harass the defendant, plaintiff filed C.C.No.1069 of 2003 on the file of XV Metropolitan Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, on the basis of a forged and fabricated cheque, which was contested by the defendant and he gave appropriate reply to the statutory notice giving complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in connection with the said cheque transaction. Whereas, the second defendant while adopting the contents of the written statement of the first defendant, which are inconsistent with the written statement of the first defendant, pleaded that he is not a proper and necessary party to the suit and he was impleaded only to harass him. But the pleas which are now taken about the second defendant, purchasing two wheeler from M/s.Sowbhagya Automobiles, Kakinada by utilizing the finance provided by M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and for availing the finance facility sending five blank cheques, two signed by the first defendant and the other three by the second defendant, one blank Non- Judicial Stamp paper signed by both the defendants etc., were never pleaded by the second defendant nor by the first defendant in their earlier pleadings. Since there is no semblance of the theory, which was now put forth by the second defendant in their written statement nor any suggestion was made to P.W.1 in that regard, propounding a new theory in the additional written statement cannot be permitted, that too after the trial is commenced and plaintiff’s evidence is closed. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower court dismissing the I.A. does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 18th December 2009 LMV