CH SINGAIAH Vs. B LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Addanki, in IA No. 460/1990 in AS No. 18/1987, whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff obtained a money decree against the petitioner- defendant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner- defendant preferred appeal bearing No. AS 18/1987. On 8-10-1990, the petitioner-defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the plaintiff is not a small farmer as per the provisions of the Act 7 of 1977 and the Act 45 of 1987, that this defendant is a small farmer and cultivator and has no other source of income except agricultural income and that as such the suit debt, even if proved to be true, is not valid and binding and hence the suit debt is abated as per the provisions of the aforesaid Acts.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff denied the allegations made by the petitioner- defendant in the application for amendment of the written statement and pleaded that he had already alleged in the plaint that the defendant is not a small farmer entitled to the benefits of the Acts, but the petitioner-defendant has not contradicted that allegation and, therefore, he should not be permitted to amend the written statement by filling of lacunae.