THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2937 OF 2011 18.08.2011 Between: Illa Satyavathi And others …Petitioners AND Doddipatla Kotilingam …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2937 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent filed O.S.No.121 of 2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- based on a promissory note executed by Illa Venkateswara Rao, who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4. After receiving the summons, petitioners filed written statement inter alia alleging that suit promissory note is fabricated, forged and created for the purpose of filing the suit. The suit is at the stage of trial. After recording of evidence of P.W.1 is completed, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.531 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) proposing consequential amendments and add paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) between paragraphs 4 and 5 of the written statement. By an elaborate order, the Court below rejected the same. Aggrieved by which, present civil revision petition is filed. The counsel for petitioners submits that the amendment application was filed only to elaborate the allegations in the written statement and that the same would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.531 of 2011 discloses that the petitioners’ lawyer after completion of evidence of P.W.1 perused promissory note and found that the signatures of the promissor, first attestor and second attestor were in different ink and pens and appeared to have been made at different points of time. Therefore, the petitioners wanted to elaborate the allegation in paragraph 4 of the written statement. It is well settled that the pleadings must be precise and must not be argumentative. The pleadings must project the cause of the parties to the proceedings with clarity and brevity. If the pleadings tend to be argumentative, it would be detrimental to the parties as well. The petitioners already alleged in the written statement that the suit promissory note is fabricated, forged and created for the purpose of the suit. The amendment now sought to be made appears to be argumentative, and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the application. The impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.08.2011 Pln