HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.887 OF 2008 Dt.23.12.2010 Between: Palisetty Satya Rao ..Petitioner And P.Srinivasa Rao ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.887 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.133 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gazuwaka, filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis of the promissory note said to have been executed by him. It is stated that as per plaint averments the suit pronote was executed on 16.6.1999, but the suit pronote was materially altered from 16.6.1999 to 26.6.1999 to save limitation. It is stated that ‘1’ has been altered as ‘2’ and if it is 16.6.1999 the suit is barred by limitation and if it is 26.6.1999 the suit is within the time. It is further stated that the original pronote was in the court and the same could not be personally verified and after leading evidence by the plaintiff the said material alteration has came to the notice of the defendant and therefore he wanted to file amendment of the pleading with regard to the said alternation under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application was contested and the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that after the evidence of the plaintiff is closed and when the matter is coming up for defendant’s evidence, the application filed at this stage is not maintainable. I am of the opinion that it is not known at what stage the original pronote was altered when it was in the custody of the court. Merely because there is some negligence in perusing the original document with regard to the said alteration, it cannot be said that the defendant is not entitled to amend the pleading. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V and others[1] and Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others[2] wherein it was held that the delay in filing the application for amendment of written statement is no ground in dismissing the said application and the court should consider whether such amendment could be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner seeking to amend the written statement taking as an additional defence with regard to the material alterations therein and therefore the dismissal of the said application on the ground of delay is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Both the parties are at liberty to lead evidence with regard to the said additional ground taken in the written statement. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 23.12.2010 kpr [1] 2007 (5) ALD 37 (SC) [2] 2007 (5) ALD 79 (SC)