THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4465 of 2011 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 08.08.2011, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 503 of 2011 in O.S. No. 282 of 2010, ﬁled by the petitioner to permit him to amend the written statement as sought in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know that the documents dated 16.08.1971 and 16.11.1997 stand in the name of the father of the respondent only from the aﬃdavit in lieu of chief- examination ﬁled by the respondent. In spite of due diligence, the petitioner could not seek amendment of the plaint earlier, and immediately on coming to know of this, the petitioner ﬁled the present application to permit him to amend the written statement, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the same. He submitted that the evidence of the respondent plaintiﬀ is yet to commence, and if at this stage the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and, on the other hand, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent originally ﬁled the suit in the year 2003 and later sought amendment of the plaint, and in spite of that he has not taken any steps to seek amendment of the written statement. After amendment of the plaint, the suit was transferred to the Court below on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial in the suit has already commenced and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is over, and if at this stage, the amendment as sought for by the petitioner is allowed, serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent. Hence, he prayed that order under revision be conﬁrmed and the C.R.P. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator and perused the order under revision. As can be seen from the order under revision, the respondent originally ﬁled the suit for permanent injunction in the year 2003. Subsequently, he amended the plaint and prayed for declaration of right and title. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court below on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Even though the petitioner contends that he came to know about the documents in question from the aﬃdavit in lieu of chief- examination ﬁled by P.W.1, the fact remains, the Court below upon perusing the plaint ﬁled by the respondent, found that the respondent in para 3 of the plaint had made a mention about the documents in question, which stand in the name of the father of the respondent. Though the respondent had made a mention of the documents in the plaint as far back as in the year 2003, and also sought amendment thereafter, the petitioner did not seek amendment of the written statement immediately, and after lapse of eight years ﬁled the present application. Though he contends that the trial in the suit is yet to commence, it is the case of the respondent that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the side of the respondent is over. Since the evidence on the side of the respondent is half-way through, it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint, for if it is allowed, serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent. Be that as it may tee petitioner not being diligent in seeking amendment of the written statement at an earlier point of time, and the reason cited by him that he came to know of the documents from the aﬃdavit in lieu of chief-examination of P.W.1 having been found to be incorrect, the Court refused to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement, and no exception can be taken thereto. In the above view of the matter, this Court ﬁnds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 09th December, 2011 KSR