ORDER :

1. Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 05.07.2022 in I.A.No.713 of 2021 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. Respondent, being the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.12 of 2015 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note said to have been executed by defendant on 20.12.2004.

3. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that promissory note is concocted by plaintiff and the same is rank forgery; that suit promissory note was materially altered and the suit is not maintainable. He also pleaded that suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the suit and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4. Trial Court framed the issues. Plaintiff and one of the attestors of promissory note were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 was cross examined on 03.11.2021 and P.W.2 was cross examined on 12.11.2021. When the suit is coming up for the evidence of defendant, he filed I.A.No.713 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement.

5. The proposed amendment sought for is that “defendant never borrowed any amount and never executed promissory note; that wife of defendant used to run private chits business and plaintiff was subscriber of four chit transactions, each for Rs.2,00,000/- on behalf of his relative B.V.R.Ranganath, Hyderabad; in the middle of chit transaction, plaintiff informed that he is going to quit from the chits and insisted the wife of defendant to return the amount paid by him for the above chits; wife of defendant requested the plaintiff to wait for some time, but the defendant demanded to pay the amount and also threatened to damage her reputation; under these circumstances, defendant gave the promissory note with his signature by filing up columns of date and amount for security purpose; taking advantage of the same, by filling up columns, suit was filed; even prior to receipt of suit summons, plaintiff approached him and informed that he filed suit against the defendant and obtained attachment order and further, obtained a letter dated 31.01.2015”,

6. By filing counter, plaintiff opposed the application.

7. Trial Court by order dated 05.07.2022 dismissed the application. Against the said order, the above revision is filed.

8. Sri Bolla Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that the proposed amendment is neither changing the defense nor taking away the admission made in the written statement. He would submit that proposed amendment is explaining the contents in the written statement and no new plea was raised. He also would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by virtue of proposed amendment and prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court.

9. The points arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it and considering the application filed by defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?

2) Whether the defendant satisfied due diligence test as contemplated under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?

10. Suit O.S.No.12 off 2015 was filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. Defendant initially pleaded fabrication, forgery, no cause of action and barred by limitation. Trial was commenced, P.W.1 was cross examined on 03.11.2011 and 2nd attestor was cross examined on 12.11.2021. Plaintiff reported no evidence and the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed. At that juncture, the interlocutory application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment.

11. The proposed amendment in the considered opinion of this Court is not explaining the contents of original written statement. New plea was introduced by defendant regarding suit transaction. In fact, trial Court observed that suggestions put to P.W.1 during her cross examination about the chit transactions and relation with B.V.R. Ranganath etc. In fact, those suggestions were put to witness, without there being any plead