SHAIK SUBHANI Vs. SAGAMREDDY NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 18.02.2014 in I.A.No.817 of 2013 in O.S.No.132 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala.

(2.) The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,04,462/- on the foot of two promissory notes dated 09.09.2005 and 24.09.2005 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement, wherein he has denied execution of the two promissory notes by specifically pleading that they were rank forgery. After framing of the issues, the respondent-plaintiff adduced her evidence and when the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, he has filed the above-mentioned I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement. He has pleaded in his affidavit filed in support of the application that during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, he has noticed that the suit pronotes were materially altered, that on the pronote dated 09.09.2005, he has found endorsement dated 31.08.2008 pertaining to purported part payment, that he has also found suit pronote dated 24.09.2005 materially altered in column No.12 and that the signatures of the attestors on both pronotes and also the signatures under the part payments on the backside of the suit pronotes were found fabricated. The petitioner further pleaded that he has not taken the said plea in the written statement out of ignorance of law and that, therefore, he filed the present application for amendment of the written statement for incorporating the said pleas. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. On considering the respective pleadings of the parties, the lower Court has dismissed the application for amendment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-defendant filed this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in order to do substantial justice between the parties, the lower Court ought to have allowed the petitioners application. He further submitted that under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., a fair amount of discretion is vested in the courts for ordering amendment and that rejection of the application for amendment mainly on the ground of delay will result in failure of justice.