THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1385 of 2009 in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner herein, plaintiff in the suit, praying the Court below to permit him to amend the plaint averments, at paragraphs 3 and 6, by correcting the date of statutory notice mentioned as ‘01.12.2003’ to that of ‘01.12.2004’, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 before the Court below, for eviction of the respondent herein from the suit schedule property. When the matter has been coming up for reply arguments of the plaintiff’s counsel, the petitioner-plaintiff came up with the present application stating that, in the plaint, at paragraphs 3 and 6, the date of statutory notice issued by him to the defendant, requiring him to vacate the suit schedule property on expiry of the tenancy period by 31.12.2004, was wrongly mentioned as ‘01.12.2003’ instead of ‘01.12.2004’, and the said typographical error came to light during the course of arguments of the defendant’s counsel, and therefore the petitioner-plaintiff sought permission for amending the plaint by correcting that typographical error. Respondent-defendant resisted the same by filing counter-affidavit, stating that the suit is based on the statutory notice dated 01.12.2003 only, and he filed the written statement way back on 01.09.2005, denying the issuance of said notice dated 01.12.2003, and after a lapse of more than four years therefrom, the present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings, and further the proposed amendment, sought at a belated stage, would change the entire cause of action and hence the same is not permissible. It was further stated that the petitioner, having admitted on oath, during the cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, that he issued legal notice to the defendant during December 2003, cannot seek amendment contrary to his own admissions. The Court below, after a detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the application, by the impugned order dated 30.12.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the date of notice was correctly mentioned as ‘01.12.2004’ at paragraph 5 of the plaint and, by mistake, it was wrongly mentioned as ‘01.12.2003’ at paragraphs 3 and 6 and that, during the further cross-examination by the respondent’s counsel, the petitioner categorically stated that he got issued notice to the respondent in the month of December 2004. He further contended that the proposed amendment if allowed would not cause any prejudice to the respondent-defendant and that the Court below ought to have seen that it is immaterial as to at what stage the amendment is sought for, but, by such amendment, the real controversy between the parties can be resolved effectively. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court i n Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore[1], where the amendment of plaint allowed after passing of final decree was upheld and Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd[2], where the amendment of plaint sought after settlement of issues was allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the suit is of the year 2005 and after more than four years, when the matter is at the stage of reply arguments, the petitioner came up with the present application, seeking amendment of plaint, only to drag on the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings and the proviso thereto clearly speaks that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Admittedly, the present application is filed after the commencement of trial. As can be seen from the record, the respondent-defendant filed his written statement in the year 2005 itself, denying the issuance of statutory notice dated 01.12.2003 by the petitioner-plaintiff. If really the date of notice was mentioned wrongly in the plaint by oversight, the petitioner at least ought to have taken steps to get the same rectified after going through the written statement of the respondent. But he did not do so and, having filed his affidavit in-lieu of examination-in-chief referring the date of notice as ‘01.12.2003’ only and having admitted in his cross-examination at one stage that he issued notice to the defendant in December 2003, he filed the present I.A. in the year 2009, i.e. after lapse of more than four years and that too while the suit is coming up for reply arguments of the counsel for the respondent. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in spite of due diligence, could not seek amendment of plaint at the earliest point of time, and the stand taken by him that the typographical mistake came to his knowledge only during the course of arguments by the defendant’s counsel, cannot be believed. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decisions of the Supreme Court referred supra is of no help to the case of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the present application and the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th February 2010 IBL [1] AIR 2009 S.C. 2141 [2] 2008 AIR (SCW) 0 1061