THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1537 OF 2011 DATED 21ST APRIL, 2011 BETWEEN Totakura Chinna Veeeramma (died) and others. …Petitioners And Chennur Ramakrishna Reddy and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1537 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in I.A.No.301 of 2011 in O.S.No.5 of 2005. The said application was filed by the petitioners herein, some of the defendants in the suit, seeking permission to amend the additional written statement dated 17.02.2010 filed by them. By the order dated 16.03.2011, the trial Court dismissed the application. Perusal of the order passed by the trial Court reflects that basing upon the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and more particularly, the proviso thereto, the trial Court came to the opinion that the application was belated. It may be noticed that as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as it stands presently, no application for amendment should 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 the trial. In the present case, not only had the trial commenced but it had also concluded in the first instance. It was reopened after the filing of the additional written statement. Further, the amendment sought to be introduced was with regard to facts which were well within the knowledge of the defendants even earlier. The amendment sought with regard to substitution of the names of the societies cannot be said to be typographical errors as the names were sought to be completely changed. The Judgment of this Court in AKULA RAJAIAH AND OTHERS v. KANNAMALLA KRUPAMMA[1] is therefore of no avail to the petitioners as the said case dealt with a clear typographical error where the word ‘incorrect’ was wrongly shown as ‘correct’. Such not being the situation in the case on hand, this amendment cannot be categorized as correction of typographical errors. Sri J.Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES v. MULLA HUSSAINY BHAI MULLA AKBERALLY[2], wherein it was held that mere delay was not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of an additional counter statement. That case however did not involve a fact situation falling within the ambit of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and therefore does not aid the petitioners’ case. Similarly, the Judgment of this Court in MECHINENI CHOKKA RAO v. SATTU SATTAMMA[3] does not further the case of the petitioners. In that case, this Court had held that if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial, notwithstanding the stage at which the application was filed, it may allow the application. The facts on hand however demonstrate that this case stands on a different footing as the facts sought to be introduced now were well within the knowledge of the defendants earlier also. The trial Court therefore did not commit any error in disallowing the application filed for amendment of the additional written statement. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST APRIL, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] 2005 (2) ALD 41 [2] 2010 (1) SCJ 919 [3] 2006 (1) ALD 116