HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1000 OF 2010. DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN Vanukuri Subba Reddy …..Petitioner and Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Guntur, Rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director Madala Sudhakar … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1000 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is the defendant, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by ﬁling the present Civil Revision Petition inter alia assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.1.2010 whereby the Court below dismissed I.A.No.1263 of 2009 in O.S.No. 77 of 2004 ﬁled under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 115 CPC for amendment of the written statement. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein ﬁled the suit for speciﬁc performance. The evidence on both sides was closed. At this stage, the petitioner sought to amend the written statement stating that the respondent took his signature on blank papers while obtaining loan; that with malaﬁde intention to grab the property, the respondent executed sham documents suppressing real value of the land etc.,. No doubt the present amendment is totally new one and the same may call for fresh enquiry and also evidence from both sides. In view of the same, the Court below did not ﬁnd favour for the petitioner and dismissed the application for amendment. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the record, it is to be seen that entire evidence of the respondent is completed and the cross- examination of the petitioner is also over. At this stage, the present petition for amendment certainly warrants denova trial. If the amendment petition is allowed, it amounts to emerging of all new facts into the proceedings and as such both the parties have to adduce evidence on the new facts and thereby a fresh trial has to be commenced. Therefore, allowing the proposed amendment at this stage amounts to impose upon the Court to take up denova trial from the beginning. From a perusal of the order under revision, it reveals that the Court below rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application for amendment. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference with order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr.