IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1277 OF 2011 Between: Anche Maruthi Vara Prasad …Petitioner A n d Kasaraneni Venkateswara Rao ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1277 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2011 in I.A.No.198 of 2011 in O.S.No.158 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of amount due under several pronotes. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement admitting the borrowal of the amounts and execution of the pronotes marked as ‘A’ to ‘F’ in favour of the original promisee and contending that the defendant is not aware of the alleged endorsement on the suit pronotes for collection by the original promisee in favour of the plaintiff. In the written statement, it is further pleaded by the defendant that he informed the plaintiff and other creditors that he required some time for repayment of the debts due under the pronotes and he is not in a position to pay the amounts in lumpsum and he is ready to pay in installments. He further pleaded that the plaintiffs and other creditors agreed for the same, but the plaintiff filed the suit to harass the defendant. The defendant also pleaded that he is also a small farmer and interest is liable to be scaled down. Finally, the defendant prayed that in the event of suit being decreed, he may be permitted to pay the amount in installments. After the trial of the suit commenced and the matter was coming for cross- examination of P.Ws. 2 to 6, the present application is filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement to the effect that the plaintiff lent the amount under the suit pronotes, but he obtained pronotes in the name of his close relatives and the defendant did not borrow any amount from the original creditors and there is no relationship of creditor and borrower between the original payees and the defendant. He further pleaded that he paid an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- towards interest under the pronotes to the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses, but, however, the defendant did not make an endorsement on the pronotes out of confidence and the plaintiff suppressed the said payment and filed the suit. Thus, it can be seen from the original written statement and the proposed additional written statement that the pleas taken by the defendant are inconsistent and contradictory. As per the original written statement, the defendant’s plea is that he borrowed the amounts from the original payees and executed pronotes in their favour and he was not aware of the transfer of the pronotes for collection by the original payees in favour of the plaintiff. In the proposed additional written statement, the defendant pleads that he borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff only and the plaintiff has taken the pronotes in the name of his relatives and there is no relationship of creditors and debtors between the original payees and the defendant. In the original written statement, the defendant has ultimately pleaded for scaling down of interest and permission to pay the amounts by way of installments. In the proposed additional written statement, he pleads that he made payment of Rs.2,05,000/- towards interest, but did not get the same endorsed on the promotes, out of confidence. There is absolutely no reason as to why the said plea was not taken in the original written statement. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not also disclose any reasons that necessitated filing of the additional written statement. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant would contend that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the more liberal approach is permissible than in the case of amendment of plaint and the defendant can be permitted to raise multifarious defences. The principle that defendant has right to take alternative pleas in defence and the Courts would be more generous in allowing the amendment of written statement than in allowing the amendment of the plaint, is not disputed. However, when such amendment of written statement has the effect of taking away the admission of material fact made in the original written statement and thereby causing serious prejudice to the other side, the same cannot be permitted. 5. In USHA BALASHAHEB SWAMI AND OTHERS V. KIRAN APPASO SWAMI AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court held that addition of a new ground of defence or subsisting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written statement can be allowed as long as the amended pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or displacing him completely. In the above case, it was held that it was not a case of withdrawal of the admission by the defendant by making application for amendment of written statement and in fact, the admission made in the written statement was kept intact and only a proviso was sought to be added by way of amendment by way of explaining the said admission. The Apex Court further held as under: “Therefore, it was neither a case of withdrawal of admission made in the written statement nor a case of washing out admission made by the appellant in the written statement. As noted herein earlier, by such amendment the appellant had kept the admission intact and only added certain additional facts which need to be proved by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 to get shares in the suit properties alleged to have been admitted by the appellants in their written statement.” 6. In the present case, the proposed amendment seeks to virtually take away the admission made earlier in the original written statement on certain material facts of the case. It is not a case of explaining or clarifying the admission made earlier, but is a case where the said admission is sought to be totally withdrawn. Such an amendment which has the effect of totally withdrawing or washing out the admission made in the original written statement and thereby causing serious prejudice to the other side and which is sought to be raised after the completion of the evidence of six witnesses on the plaintiff’s side, cannot be permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is entitled to take multifarious defences. The impugned order passed by the trial Court in due exercise of discretion, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant and refusing to grant permission to file the additional written statement, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th October, 2011 Lrkm. [1] (2007) 5 SCC 602