IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4311 OF 2010 Date:24.03.2011 Between:- Chikka Yadagiri and another ..Petitioners/petitioners/respondents And T.Ramesh and another .. Respondents/respondents/petitioners ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.07.2010 in I.A.No.17 of 2010 in R.C.No.177 of 2008 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to amend the counter in the main Rent Control case by adding one para to be inserted as para 6(a) after para 6, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents and respondents herein are the petitioners in R.C.No.177 of 2008. I.A.No.17 of 2010 is filed to amend the counter by inserting Para No.6(a) after Para No.6 as under: “I submit that the respondent No.2/petitioner No.2 is running the said business and dealing with ready made garments and kids wear under the name and style “Chancellor Selection” at shop No.15, MPR Complex, Near Petrol Pump, IDPL “X” Road, Chintal, Hyderabad-500055. The allegation made in Main Petition for personal requirement of the 2nd petitioner, became malafide one, with the intention to harass the respondent and to make illegal gain and with a malafide intention to increase the rent exorbitantly. That the petitioners have come with unclean hands by suppressing the true facts of various business establishments in the city, and that in view of the ownerships the claim of the petitioner of requirement of petition schedule property does not survive and the same deserves to be dismissed.” 3. No doubt, the amendment of pleadings should be liberally construed so as to do substantial justice to the parties, but in view of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., the party must show that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Then, in such a case, amendment petition can be allowed. For that, if the party wants to amend the pleadings, he must show that his case falls under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, nowhere it is stated that in spite of due diligence, they could not have taken such a plea or that the opening of the shop by the second petitioner has come to their knowledge after filing of the petition. In the absence of any grounds, the amendment of pleading is not automatic or routine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others[1], wherein it is held at para No.17 as under: “From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the Court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, however, provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case, as the trial of the suit has not yet commenced.” The above decision has no application to the case on hand. That is a case where the trial of the case has not been commenced. Therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. has no application in that case, but in the present case, admittedly, the trial of the case has been commenced and P.W.1 was examined nearly one year prior to the filing of the amendment petition. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that P.W.1 was not cross examined and the cross examination was forfeited. The right to cross examination is a valuable right conferred on the opposite party, but due to some technical grounds, that right cannot be taken away. Therefore, for that purpose, the petitioners are at liberty to file an application to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross examination and the same shall be considered by the trial Court. The trial Court shall dispose of R.C.No.177 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. 6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 24th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4311 OF 2010 Date:24.03.2011 AMD [1] (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 602