S M MUSTAFA Vs. H M SESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Dist. Munsif, Anantapur made in IA.No.393/91 in OS.371/88 dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The suit was instituted on the foot of a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant-respondent for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest calculated at 30% per annum. In the plaint, it was averred in paragraph 3:

(2.) Sri Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the plaintiff is not seeking to introduce any new case; paragraph 3 of the plaint already contains the necessary averment mat on 13-8-85, Rs.5,000/- was borrowed by the defendant and the suit promissory note was executed. The proposed amendment is only intended to clarify the position.

(3.) I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In his chief-examination, the petitioner-plaintiff as P.W.1 did notsay anything about the defendent borrowing cash of Rs.5,000/- in the morning of 13-8-85 and executing the promissory note in the evening. From a reading of paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is not possible to spell out that what is now endeavoured to be brought on record is by way of clarification. Paragraph 3 of the plaintiff has already been extracted, supra. If what is sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the plaint was true, certainly the plaintiff would have deposed to that effect in his evidence as P.W.1 when he did not mention anything in that regard, permitting him to do so now would amount to allowing him to introduce a case other than what he has specifically pleaded. The learned District Munsif, therefore, was right in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint.