THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3815 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25.07.2011, in I.A.No.520 of 2011 in O.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner herein for the relief of damages of Rs.25,00,000/- alleging that the petitioner-defendant committed certain acts of defamation against the respondent-plaintiff. Petitioner-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. It is stated that before the trial of the suit commenced, petitioner-defendant trespassed into the office of the plaintiff on 10.06.2007 and abused the plaintiff in filthy language and also beat him and threatened to kill him if he does not withdraw the suit. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the police filed a case against the defendant in C.C.No.1206 of 2009 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in respect of the said incident and after trial the defendant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Plaintiff seeks to bring the above aspects on record by way of amendment of the plaint. The defendant opposed the application contending that the same is barred by limitation and also the application is highly belated. 4. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff only seeks to bring on record the alleged subsequent incident whereunder the defendant is said to have trespassed into the office of the plaintiff and abused him and beat him and also threatened to kill him if he does not withdraw the suit. The claim for damages made in the suit is based on the original cause of action sought in the plaint, which is said to have taken place prior to filing of the suit. The said relief of damages is not based on the proposed amendment, whereunder the plaintiff only seeks to bring on record certain subsequent event, which is alleged to have taken place after filing of the suit. The question of bar of limitation does not therefore arise. The incident is stated to have taken place on 10.06.2009. The present application is filed on 12.11.2010. Admittedly, the trial of the suit has not commenced. The question of bar contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not also arise because there was no occasion for the plaintiff to raise the proposed additional plea in the original plaint as the alleged incident is said to have taken place only subsequent to filing of the suit. The question of the plaintiff’s failure to raise the said plea at an earlier point of time in spite of due diligence does not therefore arise as it is in respect of subsequent event that the proposed amendment is sought for. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this Court in NARNE ESTATES (P) LTD., SECUNDERABNAD v. N. GOPAL NAIDU AND OTHERS[1], wherein the application for amendment was dismissed on the ground that it was wholly belated and the petitioner therein failed to plead and prove due diligence as envisaged under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 6. In the above case, the suit was filed for permanent injunction and while disposing of an appeal, which arose from an order of granting ad-interim injunction, the appellate Court observed that the plaintiff has not sought declaratory decree in the main suit. Five years later, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by seeking the declaratory relief also. Plaintiff therein could have prayed for the relief of declaration even while filing the suit for injunction, but he failed to do so and five years after the order passed by the appellate Court he sought to amend the plaint. Under those circumstances, it was held that the plaintiff therein failed to prove that in spite of due diligence he could not have raised the plea earlier. The decision cited earlier is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that at the time of filing the plaint there was no occasion for the plaintiff to plead about the alleged incident as the said incident is said to have taken place subsequently after filing of the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision reported in VIDYABAI AND OTHERS v. PADMALATHA AND ANOTHER[2], wherein the apex court held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief would amount to commencement of the proceeding. 8. In the present case, the trial has not commenced and the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the plaintiff is not filed. Thus, as the trial of the suit has not yet commenced, the delay in filing the application for the amendment is not of much consequence as the plaintiff only seeks to bring on record certain alleged subsequent event and the proposed amendment does not in any way cause prejudice to the defendant in his defence. It is open to the defendant to file additional written statement in response to the proposed amendment of plaint. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. 9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 04th November, 2011. Tsy [1] 2011 (5) ALD 445 [2] AIR 1009 SUPREME COURT 1433