( 1 ) THE defendant is the petitioner in these two revisions which are filed seeking to assail the orders in I. A. Nos. 692 and 697 of 2002 in O. S. No. 227 of 2001, dt. 7-11-2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, kurnool dismissing the applications purported to have been filed under Order 6 rule 17 C. P. C. seeking amendment of the written Statement and another one under order 8 Rule 1-A (3) CPC and Section 151 cpc requesting leave of the court to receive the document viz. , tape cassette.

( 2 ) HEARD both sides. On a consideration, briefly, the facts of the case which emerge are that the respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,62,133. 00 on the foot of a promissory note, dated 24-5-1999 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner-defendant for a sum of Rs. one lakh repayable with interest at 24% p. a. , contesting the suit claim, the case of the petitioner-defendant in the Written statement filed on 1-6-2002 was that the said promissory note is a rank forgery and the same was brought out at the instance of one sri K. E. Vara Prasad @ Tanker Prasad of dhone as a result of certain existing disputes relating to money transactions between the said Prasad and the sister of the defendant. Thereupon the court below framed the issues on 24-6-2002. After the trial commencing on 16-9-2002, the respondent-plaintiff closed the evidence on his side on 9-10-2002 after examining two witnesses. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 28-10-2002 for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant and on which day these two applications were filed. The case of the petitioner-defendant in these two applications is that subsequent to filing of the Written Statement, the petitioner had a telephonic talk on 25-6-2002 with the respondent-Plaintiff which was tape recorded on the speaker phone wherein it was admitted by the respondent-plaintiff that the suit claim is only at the instance of the said Prasad and he will go by his (Prasad) instructions. The said version was confronted by the petitioner to the respondent-plaintiff when he was in the witness box, however, it was denied, that the tape cassette was not received in evidence on the objection raised by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the said version is not set-forth in the Written statement and being a new plea, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff to rebut. Thus the cross-examination was confined to the pleas in the Written Statement. Hence it necessitated the petitioner to file the present applications.

( 3 ) CONTESTING the applications, the case of the respondent was that he never had any talk as such with the petitioner on phone and further stating that when a suit is pending and contested, the question of having any such talk does not arise. Hence neither there exists any truth in the said allegation nor the petitioner is entitled to seelk any amendment of written Statement to introduce plea on the said tape cassette.

( 4 ) THE court below after considering the submissions made on either side, dismissed the applications placing reliance on the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground that no application for amendment can be allowed after trial commences and, even otherwise, the petitioner did not immediately approach the court.

( 5 ) AFTER considering the contentions advanced on either side and on a perusal of the record, it is evident that under these two applications the petitioner-defendant sought to sustain the said plea in view of the subsequent event of having a telephonic talk later to the filing of Written Statement in court wherein, the respondent-Plaintiff has admitted about the involvement of one k. E. Vara Prasad behind the suit claim. Therefore, he wanted to incorporate the plea in the written statement and the tape cassette into the evidence. There is no dispute about the fact that the original written Statement was filed by the petitioner on 1-6-2002. According to the petitioner, the t