RODDA NARSAIAH Vs. ADLA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the defendant questioning the impugned order passed by the lower Court permitting the plaintiff/respondent to amend cause of action para in the plaint. The suit is based on the suit pro-note under which the defendant is stated to have borrowed money from the plaintiff on interest after executing the suit pro-note. The suit was filed in the year 2009. The written statement of the defendant was also filed, issues were framed, trial had commenced and the plaintiff's evidence was completed by examining P.Ws. 1 to 3. PW 1 is the plaintiff and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are stated to be attesters in the suit pro-note. At that point of time, the plaintiff filed the present petition in the lower Court under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of para 6 of the plaint. Originally in para 6 of the plaint it was stated "the cause of action for the suit arose on 08.09.2006 at Annaram village of Manakondoor Mandal of Karimnagar District, when and where the defendant borrowed the loan amount and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff". Now by way of amendment, the plaintiff sought to amend cause of action in the plaint to the effect that cause of action arose at Annaram village when and where the defendant requested the plaintiff to give loan to him and at Kothapally (H) village of Karimnagar Mandal when and where the defendant has borrowed the loan amount. The original plaint reads as if the borrowing of the loan amount was at Annaram; whereas the amended plaint reads as if the loan was borrowed at Kothapally (H) village. Both the said villages are different villages in different Mandals but in the same District and within the same territorial jurisdiction of the lower Court.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel placing reliance on proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. contended before this Court that there is virtual prohibition of permitting amendment of pleadings subsequent to commencement of trial. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel placing reliance on latter portion of the same proviso contended that such an amendment became necessary for the plaintiff for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and particularly in view of cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 wherein the said witnesses gave evidence as if the borrowing was at Kothapally (H) village, though request for borrowing was at Annaram village. In opinion of this Court, this is what was sought to be prohibited under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. General rule of civil procedure is that evidence has to be let in by the parties in accordance with their respective pleadings. In this case, the plaintiff wants to adopt a reverse method, to the effect that he wants to amend the plaint in accordance with the evidence/cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3. This would be nothing but putting the cart before the horse.

(3.) Having regard to the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the fact situation in this case is contrary to the rigour of prohibition contained in first part of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. I find that the second part of the proviso which attempted to ease out the rigor contained in the first part of said proviso, has no application herein. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the lower Court is contrary to law and therefore, liable to be set aside. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower Court. No costs.