THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4915 of 2011. ORDER: This misconceived revision under Article 227 is directed against the order dt. 14.9.2011 of the learned II Additional Jr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting I.A.No. 715 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioner/defendant seeking amendment of the written statement. The demonstrable factual scenario is that the suit summons were received by the revision petitioner on 7.1.2011 and three months thereafter written statement was filed on 25.4.2011; issues were framed on the same day and the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence. Trial commenced on 28.6.2011. Plaintiff’s evidence was concluded on 7.7.2011 and thereafter on 14.7.2011, I.A.No. 715 of 2011 was filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, the revision petitioner claimed that at the time of filing written statement, he had received only plaint copy and the petition copy but did not receive the suit promissory note dt. 16.11.2008 along with the plaint; that he had taken a specific plea that he had not borrowed the amount of Rs. 65,000/- on 16.11.2008 from the plaintiff; that in 2006 he borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained his signature and that of his wife on a blank unfilled promissory note; and that subsequently he had repaid the entire loan due with interest to the plaintiff and when he asked for return of blank promissory note and other papers lying with him, the plaintiff stated that he had misplaced them and he would return the same when he traced them. In the application seeking amendment of the written statement, the revision petitioner wants to plead that the plaintiff filed the suit by forging his signature as well as that of his wife on the suit promissory note, with a view to gain wrongful benefit from him. The trial in the suit has commenced and therefore the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. would apply. The revision petitioner failed to establish that he could not take such a plea in spite of due diligence. The court below rejected the application for amendment of the written statement. This Court finds no revisable error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 09.12.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4915 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 09.12.2011.