IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH [28TH] DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5495 of 2009 Between: Kandi Nyayanandam …. Revision Petitioner And: Rajana Suryanarayana … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5495 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.603 of 2009 in OS No.56 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed suit against the respondent/defendant for recovery of the amount stated to be due under two promissory notes i.e., dated 01.11.2006 for borrowal of Rs.60,000/- and dated 25.09.2007 for borrowal of Rs.50,000/-. The respondent/defendant filed written statement contending that the suit promissory notes are fabricated documents. The trial of the suit has commenced and the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and another witness was examined as PW.2. At that stage, plaintiff filed I.A.No.603 of 2009 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that by mistake the place of execution of the pronotes is mentioned in the plaint as ‘Bobbili’ instead of ‘Badangi’. The respondent/defendant filed counter opposing the said petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, which is stated to be due under two promissory notes dated 01.11.2006 and 25.09.2007. The defendant has specifically pleaded in his written statement that both the promissory notes are fabricated documents and contending that the alleged borrowals are not true. In the course of evidence, PW.1 has made admission in the cross-examination that the two suit promissory notes were executed at Badangi. The plaintiff now seeks amendment of the plaint on the ground that execution of the promissory notes is noted as Bobbili in the plaint instead of Badangi by mistake. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is averred that on account of typographical mistake, the place of execution was noted as ‘Bobbili’ instead of ‘Badangi’. As rightly observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, the two places i.e., Bobbili a n d Badangi are being distinct and different, the question of typographical mistake noting the place of execution in the plaint does not arise. Secondly, the demand notice, which is said to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant prior to filing of the suit also does not mention about the place of execution of the promissory notes. It is only for the first time in the plaint, it is averred that the two promissory notes were executed at Bobbili. If really, it was so noted by inadvertence or otherwise, nothing prevented the plaintiff from taking necessary steps for its correction before the trial has commenced. It is significant to note that it is only after the plaintiff made an admission in the cross-examination that the promissory notes were executed at Badangi, the plaintiff now seeks to amend the plaint so as to bring the averments in the plaint on par with the admission made by him in the cross-examination. Such a course cannot be permitted as it will have effect of nullifying the impact of the admission made in the cross- examination, and permitting the pleadings to be amended so as to bring them on par with the admission made in the cross-examination would certainly cause prejudice to the other side. On that ground also, the proposed amendment cannot be permitted. That apart, the trial of the suit has already commenced and the plaintiff’s side evidence is completed and the matter stood posted for defendant’s evidence. In view of the bar contained under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was introduced by Amendment Act 22 of 2002, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek amendment of the plaint at this belated stage. Thus viewed from any angle, the plaintiff is not entitled to amend the plaint as prayed for. The impugned order dismissing the said application does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Any observations contained hereinabove may not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.01.2010 bss