APHC010392982024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

ANDHRA PRADESH

[3459]

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2053/2024

Between:

Kasilanka Veeraswamy Naidu ... Petitioner

and

Neduri Leela Veera Venkata

Subrahmanyam ... Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy

Counsel for the respondent : Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao

This Court made the following:

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A. No. 295 of 2022 in O.S.No.34 of 2019 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Razole, whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and Sec. 151 of CPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, seeking leave of the Court to amend the written statement, by adding para-10(a) after para

10 as follows:

“Para 10(a): This plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 is the cousin to son-in-law of Jr. Maternal aunt (Mother’s sister) of this plaintiff. Thus the present plaintiff and the plaintiff in OS NO. 36/2019 are inter-related. Two promissory notes were forged and fabricated and filed two suits for huge amounts in short intervals as follows:

Suit Number Name of the plaintiff pronote date filed for OS No. 34/2019: N.L.Veera Venkate Subrahmanyam 11.10.2016 42,16,666/- OS No. 36/2019: P.Naga Raveendra Babu 31.10.2016 24,34,666/-

Thus this suit and the suit in OS No.36/2019 were created by Mutyala Srinivasarao in the name of respective plaintifs through forgery & fabrication. It is improbable to believe that one man borrowed such huge amounts in one month from inter-related persons. There is no such necessity to the defendant & the respective plaintiffs have no such capacity. The defendant is specifically denying the capacity of the plaintiff. To disprove the case of plaintiff, it is just and necessary to club or try both suits together to find out the truth. The plaintiff has no right to proceed independently. The plaintiff in OS No. 36/2019 & Mutyala Srinivasarao are proper and necessary parties to the suit for an effective adjudication of all the matters in dispute. The difference in age of ink in the alleged promissory notes also disprove the case of plaintiff.”

3. The question involved in this revision is whether the amendment of the written statement can be permitted after the defendant has completed part of his evidence.

4. A conjoint consideration of the material on record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,16,666/- with interest against the petitioner/defendant. It is alleged that on 11.10.2016, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest which is subject matter in OS No. 34/2019.

5. The defendant submitted a written statement dated October 17, 2019, categorically refuting the assertions made in the plaint, asserting that the suit is time-barred and that the promissory note in question is a blatant forgery, alongside the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties. The promissory note has been materially altered. Furthermore, the written statement articulates that the defendant’s spouse obtained portions of Rs.13,00,000/- from Mutyala Srinivasarao on three distinct occasions in 2016. The defendant’s family subsequently remitted the aforementioned sum on eight additional occasions, culminating in a total of Rs. 16,46,000/- paid to Mutyala Srinivasarao. There exists no debtor- creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The promissory note is a spurious and fabricated document that is unenforceable under the law.

6. Admittedly, in the present suit before the trial court, the plaintiff examined PW-1 and PW-2 and marked one document as Ex.A1. On the defendant’s side, DW-1 was examined, and documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B6. Thereafter, the suit was adjour