IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5066 of 2009 Between: Yadavalli Subba Rao … Petitioner And Smt. Adari Dhanalakshmi … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Venkateswarlu for Sri C. Ramachandra Raju This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.5066 of 2009 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 05.10.2009 in I.A.No.27 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.68 of 2006. The respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts based on promissory note. More than three years after filing of the suit and after the plaintiff filed his affidavit evidence as PW.1, the petitioner filed I.A.No.27 of 2009 for amendment of the issues by adding the issue as to whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The said application was dismissed on two grounds, namely; that the petitioner has not raised the specific plea of want of territorial jurisdiction and that the application was filed belatedly i.e., at a stage when the case was coming up for cross-examination of the respondent. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph 8 of the written statement, wherein the petitioner raised the specific plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Court below. Therefore, to this extent the finding of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, is not correct. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel, it is no doubt true that under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues. But, this is only an enabling provision whereby the power is vested in the Court to amend the issues if it is satisfied that such amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit. In the instant case, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, having raised the plea in the written statement failed to raise objection at the time when the issues were framed by the Court below. Having waited till the suit was ripe for trial and after filing of the affidavit evidence by the plaintiff, the petitioner came out with the present application. The petitioner failed to submit any explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the application for amendment. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he was not serious in pressing his objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below and obviously to procrastinate the proceedings he raised this objection at a belated stage. Therefore, in my considered view, the Court below was justified in dismissing the application. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CMP.No.6943 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.11.2009 ES