Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu vs Neduri Leela Veera Venkata … on 21 April, 2025
APHC010392982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
[3459]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2053/2024
Between:
Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu ... Petitioner
and
Neduri Leela Veera Venkata
Subrahmanyam ... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao
This Court made the following:
2
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A. No. 295 of 2022 in
O.S.No.34 of 2019 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
Razole, whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and
Sec. 151 of CPC was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, seeking leave of the
Court to amend the written statement, by adding para-10(a) after para
10 as follows:
“Para 10(a): This plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 is the cousin to
son-in-law of Jr. Maternal aunt (Mother’s sister) of this
plaintiff. Thus the present plaintiff and the plaintiff in OS NO.
36/2019 are inter-related. Two promissory notes were forged
and fabricated and filed two suits for huge amounts in short
intervals as follows:
Suit Number Name of the plaintiff pronote date filed for
OS No. 34/2019: N.L.Veera Venkate Subrahmanyam 11.10.2016 42,16,666/-
OS No. 36/2019: P.Naga Raveendra Babu 31.10.2016 24,34,666/-
Thus this suit and the suit in OS No.36/2019 were created by
Mutyala Srinivasarao in the name of respective plaintifs
through forgery & fabrication. It is improbable to believe that
one man borrowed such huge amounts in one month from
inter-related persons. There is no such necessity to the
defendant & the respective plaintiffs have no such capacity.
The defendant is specifically denying the capacity of the
plaintiff. To disprove the case of plaintiff, it is just and
3
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024necessary to club or try both suits together to find out the
truth. The plaintiff has no right to proceed independently.
The plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 & Mutyala Srinivasarao are
proper and necessary parties to the suit for an effective
adjudication of all the matters in dispute. The difference in
age of ink in the alleged promissory notes also disprove the
case of plaintiff.”
3. The question involved in this revision is whether the amendment
of the written statement can be permitted after the defendant has
completed part of his evidence.
4. A conjoint consideration of the material on record reveals that the
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs.42,16,666/- with interest against the petitioner/defendant. It is alleged
that on 11.10.2016, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-
from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the
same with interest which is subject matter in OS No. 34/2019.
5. The defendant submitted a written statement dated October 17,
2019, categorically refuting the assertions made in the plaint, asserting
that the suit is time-barred and that the promissory note in question is a
blatant forgery, alongside the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties.
The promissory note has been materially altered. Furthermore, the
written statement articulates that the defendant’s spouse obtained
portions of Rs.13,00,000/- from Mutyala Srinivasarao on three distinct
4
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
occasions in 2016. The defendant’s family subsequently remitted the
aforementioned sum on eight additional occasions, culminating in a total
of Rs. 16,46,000/- paid to Mutyala Srinivasarao. There exists no debtor-
creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The
promissory note is a spurious and fabricated document that is
unenforceable under the law.
6. Admittedly, in the present suit before the trial court, the plaintiff
examined PW-1 and PW-2 and marked one document as Ex.A1. On the
defendant’s side, DW-1 was examined, and documents were marked as
Exs.B1 to B6. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned and is still pending for
further evidence on the side of the defendant.
7. At this stage of the present suit, the defendant’s application under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking the leave of the court to amend
the written statement referred to above.
8. At the time of enquiry, no oral documentary evidence was
adduced on either side. The Senior Civil Judge, Razole, however,
dismissed the said application by order dated 15.03.2024 therefore the
defendant are before this court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
9. In a suit for recovery of money, the application filed under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC seeks to insert paragraph 10(a) in the written statement
5
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
at a stage where the plaintiff’s evidence is closed and the 1st defendant’s
evidence is already completed, with the matter currently posted for
further evidence on the defendant’s side. This raises a pertinent issue as
to whether such an amendment to the pleadings is permissible at this
advanced stage of the trial.
10. The primary consideration before this Court is, whether the
proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real issue in
controversy and whether its allowance would result in undue prejudice to
the opposite party. Furthermore, it must be examined whether the
present case warrants interference with the order of the trial court by
invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
11. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/revisionist submitted
that the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 dismissed the defence in
favour of the respondent, despite the respondent’s failure to present a
substantial or legitimate defence or any triable issues. The amendment
sought by the revision petitioner does not constitute a new cause of
action. However, the trial court, without considering this, dismissed the
application, against which the plaintiff/revision petitioner has preferred
the present revision petition: The learned counsel for the petitioner
6
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
referenced the judgment passed in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh1,
wherein it was held thus:
“10. Let us now take up the last ground on which the
application for amendment of the written statement was
rejected by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. The
rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea
cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate
the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as
the Trial Court. After going through the pleadings and also
the statements made in the application for amendment of the
written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent
plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in
their application for amendment of the written statement,
excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the application
for amendment of written statement regarding the joint
ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are
not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written
statement could be rejected also on this ground. That apart,
it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and
amendment of a written statement are not necessarily
governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some
general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules
that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings so
as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the
nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law
relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a
new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence
does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or
substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, in the case
of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to
be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written
statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less
likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the
latter case.”
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
strongly opposed the present petition and argued that the petitioner had
earlier filed two interlocutory applications namely, I.A. No. 330 of 2021,
1
(2006) 6 SCC 498
7
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
seeking to club the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2019 with O.S. No. 34 of 2019,
and I.A. No. 329 of 2021, seeking to implead Muthyala Srinivasarao as
Defendant No. 2 by way of an amendment to the plaint. Both
applications were dismissed with costs. It was further contended that the
present petition has been filed only to unnecessarily delay the
proceedings of the suit.
13. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to refer to Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is extracted below.
Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 1908- “The Court may at
any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as
may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may
be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties :
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.”
14. The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of
2002) introduced a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, laying down a strict
bar against allowing amendments to pleadings once the trial has
commenced, unless the court is satisfied that: Despite due diligence,
The party could not have raised the matter before commencement of
8
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
trial. The language of the proviso is couched in mandatory terms. It
clearly restricts the court’s jurisdiction to entertain an amendment
application once trial has begun, unless the jurisdictional pre-condition of
due diligence is satisfied and specifically recorded.
15. Ordinarily, an amendment to a written statement after the
commencement of trial is permissible, but not as a matter of right. Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of
pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, once the trial has
commenced, the proviso to Rule 17 imposes a restriction, and the court
may allow such amendment only if it is satisfied that, despite due
diligence, the party seeking the amendment could not have raised the
matter prior to the commencement of trial. The power to allow
amendment is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously.
Moreover, the proposed amendment should not introduce a wholly new
or inconsistent case or alter the fundamental nature of the defence.
16. It is now well-settled through authoritative pronouncements of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that filing of affidavit-in-chief or commencement
of recording of evidence marks the commencement of trial, and any
amendment thereafter must strictly pass the test of due diligence.
17. Based on the above settled position of law, the application for
amendment was filed after the commencement of trial. The plaintiff’s
9
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
evidence was already completed, and the first defendant had also
completed his evidence. The case was posted for further evidence of the
defendants. The applicant/ defendant failed to demonstrate any
circumstance indicating due diligence, nor was any explanation offered
to justify why the amendment could not have been sought earlier. And
there was no finding possible, nor pleaded, to show that the party was
genuinely unaware or unable to raise the plea at the appropriate stage.
18. Moreover, the intent behind the 2002 amendment was to curb the
abuse of amendment provisions by parties who seek to protract litigation
by belatedly introducing new facts or shifting their stand mid-trial.
19. It is indisputable that the respondent commenced legal
proceedings to recover amount based on the promissory note executed
by the defendant on 11.10.2016, marked as Ex.A-1. This action primarily
hinges on the assertion that the plaintiff lacked the requisite capacity to
disburse such sums.
20. In a suit for the recovery of an amount based on a promissory
note is initiated, should the defendant contest the execution of the note,
the court will typically evaluate the legitimacy of the promissory note
alongside the defendant’s assertions. The plaintiff bears the burden of
proving both the execution of the promissory note and the corresponding
10
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
debt owed, while the defendant is entitled to present evidence to
challenge the claim and dispute the note’s validity.
21. On an earlier occasion in 2021, the petitioner/defendant had
already filed two interlocutory applications, which were both dismissed
by the Trial Court. The petitioner even challenged those orders in
revision, no stay was granted by this Court and the matters are pending.
This shows that the petitioner had enough opportunity at that time to
raise all his objections or make necessary applications. However, he did
not file the present amendment applications at that stage.
22. Now, the petitioner is coming forward with fresh applications at a
very late stage, after the trial has already commenced. In fact, the
plaintiff’s evidence has been completed, and even the first defendant’s
evidence has concluded. The case is now at the stage of further
defendant’s evidence. This clearly shows that the petitioner had enough
time earlier but failed to act with due diligence. This conduct of the
petitioner shows that he is filing one application after another only to
delay the proceedings and drag on the litigation, and not for any genuine
reason. Such an approach is against the spirit of the law and should not
be permitted. The petitioner, through an amendment to paragraph 10
(a), is pursuing multiple forms of relief, particularly at a juncture when the
matter is scheduled for further evidence of defendants side.
11
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
23. Thus, the trial Court has correctly exercised its jurisdiction in
refusing to entertain the amendment. This rejection is in strict conformity
with the mandatory proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
24. Accordingly, the rejection of the amendment deserves to be
upheld, as it is legally sound and supported by both statutory mandate
and judicial precedent.
25. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There
is no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
21st April, 2025
cbs
12
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Civil Revision Petition No.2053 of 2024
21st April, 2025
cbs
13
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2053 of 2024
Between:
Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu, S/o Narayana
Murthy, aged about 52 years, Ponnamanda
Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
Konaseema District. … Petitionerand
Neduri Leela Veera Venkata
Subrahmanyam, S/o Koteswara Rao,
Business, aged 38 years, R/o Geddada
Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal,E.G.Dt. … RespondentDATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21-04-2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
14
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
*THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
+C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024
% 21-04-2025
Between:
Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu, S/o Narayana
Murthy, aged about 52 years, Ponnamanda
Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
Konaseema District. … Petitionerand
Neduri Leela Veera Venkata
Subrahmanyam, S/o Koteswara Rao,
Business, aged 38 years, R/o Geddada
Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal,E.G.Dt. … Respondent<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy
^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao
? CASES REFERRED :
1. (2006) 6 SCC 498
15
JS,J
C.R.P.No.2053 of 2024