IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, September 08, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini C.R.P.No. 3173 of 2011 Between: G. Suresh Kumar and another ..Petitioners and K. Govindu …Respondent The Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini C.R.P.No. 3173 of 2011 O r d e r: The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No. 365 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.12.1987 allegedly executed by the revision petitioners/defendants. Written statement was filed by the revision petitioners/defendants contending inter alia that the suit agreement was a fabricated document. While the suit was coming up for further evidence of P.W.1, the defendants filed I.A.No. 197 of 2011 under order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and after hearing both parties, the court below by order dated:11-04-2011 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the order under revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law. As could be seen, the suit is filed for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 09.12.1987, whereas the defendants by way of amendment sought to add an additional paragraph to the written statement to the effect that one Sridhar Goud wanted to purchase the suit property and accordingly, got published a notice in Andhra Prabha daily dated 14.05.2005 inviting objections, if any, however, subsequently, he backed out in view of the complaint lodged against the plaintiff for the illegal constructions being made by the plaintiff on the suit plot. It is apparent that the transaction sought to be pleaded by way of amendment to the written statement is subsequent to the suit agreement. Therefore, in my considered opinion the proposed amendment is not necessary to decide the real issue involved in the suit. Hence, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. and the interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. September 8, 2011. *BVS