THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.892 of 2011 Date:08th November, 2011 Between: 1.Nalasiddu Ravindra Reddy S/o.Chinna Narasa Reddy & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1.Veerapureddy Yesodamma W/o.Anki Reddy @ Venkata Reddy & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.892 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11.02.2011, passed in I.A.No.524 of 2010 in O.S.No.66 of 2002 on the file of th Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendants 11 to 13 seeking amendment of the written statement. 2. The petitioners are defendants 11 to 13 in O.S.No.66 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. She filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 17.07.1996. The petitioners herein came to be added in the suit since they happened to be the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property. Parties to the suit placed on record their respective pleas before the trial Court. The trial Court settled issues. The plaintiff examined witnesses on her behalf and closed evidence on her behalf. Thereafter, the case stood posted for evidence on behalf of the defendants. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.524 of 2010 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement. By filing additional written statement, they intend to introduce the plea that their sale deeds are preceded by an agreement of sale. The said application has been resisted by the plaintiff. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not mentioned any valid reasons for moving the application after commencement of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 11.02.2011. The relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, reads as hereunder: “Point: Suit O.S.66/2002 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiff for specific performance of contract. Now the suit is posted for further evidence of defendants. After closure of plaintiff side evidence, now the petitioners wanted to file additional written statement inserting new plea stating that they are subsequent purchasers. So that they are interest in the plaint schedule properties, for which the contention of the respondent is the petitioner purchased the suit land during pendency of the suit, so that it was lis-pendency. The petitioners are in the record and they have filed written statement and the written statement is not encyclopedia of the case of defendant. So if he has got any new facts made out he can argue before the court since the suit is posted for further evidence of defendant. Further it is noticed by the court that the suit is of 2002 and so that now the petitioner is not entitled to file any additional written statement at the fag end of this stage. He is not precluded by filing this documents in their evidence it will be considered at the time of judgment. So that the petitioner is not entitled to file those documents at this stage. Accordingly, the point is answered. So that it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.” Hence, this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 16.03.2011. The 1st respondent/plaintiff entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not taken the plea inadvertently in the written statement with regard to the agreement of sale preceding the sale deed and after noticing the mistake, they moved the application and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed on certain terms. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Plaintiff supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioners took the plea in the written statement that they purchased the property under registered sale deeds. They never pleaded in the written statement that their registered sale deeds are preceded by agreement of sale. The petitioners moved the application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC after closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence. No acceptable reasons have been offered for not filing the application prior to commencement of the trail. The trial Court has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:08th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.892 of 2011 Date:08th November, 2011