THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3830 2011 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN G.Satyanarayana … Petitioner and K.Ganesh and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3830 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.204 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. He filed an application in I.A.No.209 of 2011 in the suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to amend his written statement by introducing para 3 in response to paras 1 to 3 of the plaint. By order dated 22.07.2011, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The suit O.S.No.204 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 05.04.2005 (Ex.A.3) said to have been executed by the first defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants 2 to 26 came to be impleaded in the suit as they claimed to be subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property, but are however shown to be not necessary parties to the present proceedings. The first defendant filed his written statement and additional written statement in the suit, wherein he admitted execution of Ex.A.3 suit agreement of sale and also the receipt dated 05.04.2005 (Ex.A.4) evidencing payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part sale consideration. He however denied execution of receipt dated 16.05.2005 (Ex.A.9) which spoke of payment of a further sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards the sale consideration. He also denied the signature on the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A.6) filed in proof of his having received the plaintiff’s legal notice. The documents, admitted and disputed, were sent to the Finger Print Bureau, CID, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for examination. Report dated 12.10.2007 was submitted by the finger print expert wherein he opined that the thumb impression in the disputed receipt Ex.A.9 was identical with the thumb impressions on the admitted suit agreement of sale (Ex.A3). Thereafter, the trial in the suit commenced and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 on 01.09.2010 and 19.10.2010. He was cross-examined by the first defendant on 26.10.2010 and the matter was adjourned for his further cross-examination. At that stage, on 18.03.2011, the subject application was filed for amendment of the written statement. After the amendment of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC in the year 2002, the proviso appended thereto requires that after the commencement of the trial the Court, before allowing an amendment, has to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party seeking such amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The object of this amendment was obviously to cut down delays once the trial has begun. In the present case, the amendment sought is to introduce a paragraph which states to the effect that the plaintiff played fraud upon the Court by smudging the thumb impressions in the agreement of sale (Ex.A.3) and the receipt (Ex.A.4) with the thumb impressions of some person who thereafter affixed his thumb impression and signature on the disputed Ex.A.9 receipt; that the thumb impressions in Ex.A3 agreement of sale and Ex.A.4 receipt have been materially altered by the plaintiff to suit his convenience; that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and with materially altered documents; that he played fraud upon the Court and is therefore not entitled to any relief; and that the defendant in view of the above, denied the allegations contained in paras 1 to 3 of the plaint and the plaintiff was put to strict proof of the same. Pertinent to note, in his first written statement the first defendant wrote: ‘with regard to paras No.1 & 2 and 3, no reply is required as they are incorporated in the documents’. The same seems to have been his approach in the additional written statement also. However, by way of the present amendment, the first defendant wishes to altogether deny the allegations contained in paras 1 to 3 of the plaint! The trial Court therefore rightly held that the proposed amendment was quite contrary to the earlier pleadings and would amount to permitting the first defendant to withdraw the admissions hitherto made by him. Further, the Court below was not convinced that in spite of due diligence this amendment could not have been sought by the first defendant prior to the commencement of the trial and held against him on that count also. Pertinent to note, the first defendant admittedly received copies of the suit documents along with the plaint at the time of service of the suit summons itself. It is no doubt true that Courts would be generally extremely liberal in permitting amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the suit with the objective of ascertaining the real issue to be tried and tested between the warring parties. However, such discretion would be subject to certain fetters, one such being that introduced in the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in the year 2002. Further, by way of an amendment a party cannot be permitted to change his stand to the detriment of the other side. Thus, the Court below was perfectly justified in disallowing the first defendant’s attempt to amend his written statement at this late stage and at that, withdrawing his earlier admissions. The order under revision does not suffer from any error warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______SEPTEMBER, 2011 PGS