HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 291 & 292 of 2011 Date : 03.02.2011 Between : Allu Subbamma. …..Petitioner And Pulimi Mallikarjuna Reddy & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 291 and 292 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : These revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders, dated 02.11.2010, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in I.A.Nos.684 and 685 of 2010 in O.S.No.360 of 2008. Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.360 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said suit was filed for recovery of money. Earlier, an application was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint, stating that the payment endorsement was signed on the back of the pronote. The said application was allowed and amendment was carried out. Based on such pleadings, evidence is also concluded on both sides. When the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.684 of 2010 to reopen the suit and I.A.No.685 of 2010 for further amendment of plaint, on the ground that by mistake, the earlier amendment application was filed in the present suit, instead of filing it in O.S.No.159 of 2009, pending between the same parties. It is not in dispute that so far as O.S.No.360 of 2008 is concerned, evidence is closed and the matter is coming up for arguments. In that view of the matter, the suit cannot be reopened for the purpose of amending the plaint, at this stage, as the same will cause prejudice to the case of respondents, particularly in view of the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications in I.A.Nos.684 and 685 of 2010. For the aforesaid reasons, these revision petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd February 2011 ajr