THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNES, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5719 OF 2009 Between: Marneedi Appa Rao …Petitioner A n d M/s Kalpatharu Real Estates Development, Guntur, Rep. by its Managing Partner ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5719 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-10-2009 in I.A.No.606 of 2009 in O.S.No.230 of 2001, on the file of the V-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC read with 151 CPC, seeking permission of the Court 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 against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31-03-1990. The petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled. Before the trial could commence, the respondent-plaintiff sought to send the suit agreement of sale to the stamp collector for the purpose of impounding. The stamp collector has returned the document stating that as verified from the registers no such stamps were sold by A.Ramachandra Rao from whom they are purported to have been purchased and the document is a forgery and it is not possible to collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said letter dated 19-12-2008 addressed by the District Registrar, Guntur was received in the Court on 12-01-2009. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed the present application seeking permission to file additional written statement to the effect that the suit agreement is a forged document. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that necessity arose to file the said application for amendment only after receipt of the letter dated 19-12- 2008 from the stamp collector. The respondent-plaintiff would, on the other hand, contend that having admitted the suit agreement in the original written statement, the defendant cannot now be permitted to take a contradictory plea that the suit agreement is a forged document. 5. It is to be noted that in the original written statement the defendant has admitted the execution of the suit agreement dated 31-03-1990. He cannot now, therefore, contend that the suit agreement is a forged document, in the sense that the signature therein is not genuine. What all the petitioner- defendant seeks to plead now by way of additional written statement is that the stamps for the suit agreement were not genuine and they were not purchased from the stamp vendor A.Ramachandra Rao. The proposed additional plea by way of additional written statement is based on the letter received from the District Registrar of Stamps. The proposed amendment as set out now branding the suit document itself as a forgery is, therefore, impermissible, inasmuch as the defendant has admitted the execution of the suit agreement in the original written statement. It is, however, open to the petitioner-defendant to seek amendment confining the proposed additional plea to the aspect namely that the stamps for the suit agreement were not purchased from the stamp vendor A.Ramchandra Rao and, therefore, the stamps were not genuine, by filing separate application. On such application, if any, being filed, the trial Court would dispose of the same on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The impugned order is, therefore, held not liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th March, 2011 Lrkm.