IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4901 of 2009 Between: Sri Bezawada Satish Chandra Babu S/o. Veera Raghavarao, Hindu, R/o. 24-48/2, Azamabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. … Petitioner And Karri Rama Subbalakshmi W/o. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Aged 42 yrs, Hindu, R/o. TPT Colony, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Purushotham This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4901 of 2009 ORDER:- This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 17.03.2009 in I.A.No.1028 of 2008 in O.S.No.63 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.63 of 2003. The said suit was filed for recovery of possession from the respondent – plaintiff. The respondent – plaintiff filed I.A.No.1028 of 2008 seeking amendment of the plaint. In her application, the respondent pleaded that at the time of marking the documents, she came to realize that certain pleadings, which are necessary, were not raised. She also pleaded that after she changed her counsel, she was advised to file the application. The Court below allowed the said application after considering the objections of the respondent – plaintiff. At the hearing, Sri K. Purushotham, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the respondent failed to furnish proper reasons for filing the application belatedly in a suit, which is pending since 2003. The learned counsel further submitted that the application was filed after commencement of the trial and therefore the Court below ought not to have allowed the application in view of the bar contained in Order VI Rule 17 CPC. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the objection of the learned counsel that in Order VI Rule 17 there is a bar on the Court permitting amendment, the said contention is wholly misplaced. Indeed, the petitioner did not raise this plea in his counter affidavit filed in the I.A. Be that as it may, while the said provision envisages that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings, it further provided 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. Therefore, the bar created is not absolute and is subject to the satisfaction of the Court allowing such amendment. In the instant case, the respondent has assigned certain reasons, which are accepted by the Court below. In the matter of amendment of pleadings, the Courts are generally liberal in allowing the same, unless the amendments, if permitted, either would result in saving the limitation, which has expired or changing the very nature and complexion of the case. It is not the case of the petitioner that either situation exists in this case. In my considered view, by permitting the respondent to amend the pleadings, no failure of justice will be caused to the petitioner, because the initial burden to prove the averments contained in the amended pleadings are on the person who proposes the amendment. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.6724 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.11.2009 ES