THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 5565 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2009 made in IA No. 499 of 2009 in O.S. No. 615 of 2006, on the file of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the request of the petitioner to permit him to amend the written statement in the suit was negatived The revision petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 499 of 2009 in O.S. No. 615 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to permit him to amend the written statement which would change his earlier defense in the suit. The respondent therein resisted the said application by filing counter contending that evidence was already adduced on his side in the suit and that the amendment now sought totally changes the version of the petitioner in the written statement which is not admissible under law. It is also stated that the document on which the amendment now sought is of the year 2000, that is much prior to the filing of the suit and the written statement was filed in September 2006 and therefore the petitioner is estopped to amend the written statement in the year 2009 and at this stage the petition cannot be allowed. The Court below after considering the material available on record dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner therein filed the present revision petition. Heard and perused the order under revision. As seen from the order under revision the trial court observed that trial in the suit was begun and evidence on plaintiff’s side was closed and that the defendant did not plead in his written statement about the fact of his relationship with the chit fund company which he is now sought to plead by way of amendment. Further, it is to be observed that if really any relationship there exists, the defendant can plead in his written statement at the earliest point of time, but without taking any such plea at first instance, after commencement of trial in the suit and after closure of evidence on behalf of plaintiff, filing the present petition to amend the written statement is only with a view to drag the matter for some time. The trial court also observed that the proposed amendment to the written statement would change the defense of the defendant in the suit, which is not permitted under law. In view of the cogent reasons assigned by the court below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 2006, and evidence of plaintiff was already over, it would suffice if a direction is given to the court below to dispose of the main suit, if not already disposed of. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the main suit O. S. No. 615 of 2006, if not already disposed of, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________________ dt.28-01-2010 JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI kvrk THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 5565 of 2009 28-01-2010