THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P.No.5339 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order made in I.A.No.854 of 2008 in O.S.No.1501 of 2006 dated 7.10.2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement of the first defendant was dismissed. Petitioner is first defendant and first respondent is plaintiff and second respondent is second defendant in the suit. The first respondent filed suit in O.S.No.1501 of 2006 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant filed the present I.A.No.854 of 2008 seeking to amend the written statement already filed by him in the year 2006. The petition was filed on two counts, which reads as under: “(i) In the beginning of the first line of the 3rd paragraph after the words ‘It is’, add ‘Not’: (ii) Add the following as para No.4(a) ‘This defendant further submits that some land grabbers intending to trespass into the remaining extent of Ac.3-00 cents, he filed O.S.No.1270 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore and obtained a decree of permanent injunction. This defendant got published caution notices to the general public in respect of the said extent of land. After knowing the said suit, the plaintiff and some others filed suits against this defendant and others creating with false and invented allegations. Neither the plaintiff nor her vendors have right in whatsoever manner with the alleged plaint schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff filed the above suit in order to grab the absolute property of this defendant and his purchasers. The certified xerox copy of the judgment in O.S.No.1270 of2006, III A.J.C.J. Court, Nellore and the certified Xerox copy of the General Notice, marked as Ex.A.4 in the said suit together with the bill are filed herewith and the contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this written statement”. The said application was resisted by the first respondent by filing a counter. After a detailed consideration of the material placed before it, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore dismissed the application by order dated 7.10.2009. The learned counsel for petitioner states that in view of the fact that the Court below has not considered the second amendment, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by remanding the matter for reconsideration. Further, even in respect of first amendment, the Court has not properly considered. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for first respondent strenuously contended that the first amendment sought is not only inconsistent, but also not in consonance with the language imported in paragraph 3 of original written statement. Therefore, the question of amending the said paragraph by adding “Not” does not arise. The Court below rightly dismissed the application. Insofar as second amendment is concerned, may be, the Court below has not considered, the same can be considered by this Court, if necessary. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Insofar as first amendment i.e. adding the word “Not” in paragraph No.3 is concerned, I am in full agreement with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for first respondent that it would altogether change the whole meaning of the paragraph. The tenor and temper of the language imported in paragraph 3 of written statement does not permit for amendment by adding the word “Not”, therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner for amendment of the first item. Insofar as second item is concerned, which was not considered by the Court below, the plea of the petitioner is that earlier he filed a suit against some third parties in respect of some property and the judgment in the said suit, which is being a public document, has got some relevance to prove his plea. Under those circumstances, while upholding the order passed by the Court below in respect of first amendment, the second amendment is allowed and paragraph 4A shall be incorporated in the written statement filed by the defendant. The C.R.P. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 28.1.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P.No.5339 of 2009 28.1.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P.No.5339 of 2009 Dated: 28th January, 2010 Between: Vemuru Gopal Sarma Petitioner and Aytha Shakuntala & another. Respondents