THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2154 of 2022

ORDER :

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A.No.486 of 2022 in O.S.No.122 of 2013 dated 07.09.2022.

3. The revision petitioners who are the defendants to the suit moved an application under Section 151 CPC, seeking the Court to permit them to file additional written statement. Such request was dishonored and therefore, the revision petitioners are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that the respondent plaintiff sought for amendment of plaint and got plaint amended and after they came to know that the plaint was amended, they moved an application for filing additional written statement but the Court did not permit the petitioners to file additional written statement. Learned counsel submits that in case such permission is accorded, the revision petitioners would put forth their case through the additional written statement, hence, such an opportunity may be accorded.

5. Per contra, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the trial of the suit is completed and when the suit was coming up for arguments, an application for according permission to file additional written statement was filed and dealing with all the aspects, the said petition was dismissed and hence, the order that is rendered needs no interference.

6. A perusal of record reveals that initially suit was filed for recovery of money and subsequently, got amended as mortgage suit. The Court in the impugned order made an observation that the revision petitioners filed written statement on 08.01.2020 and thereafter, issues were framed on 20.01.2020 and one of the issues framed that is issue No.4 is “whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree”. Admittedly, evidence would be adduced by both parties to the proceedings with regard to the issues framed. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that without knowing about the issues framed, the revision petitioners proceeded with the trial of the case, cross examined the witnesses of the plaintiff and adduced their evidence. That apart, the trial court made a clear observation in the impugned order that the relevant questions regarding gift deed by the petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 to the respondent plaintiff as security were also put. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners were not aware of the amendment of the plaint. The petitions for amendment of pleadings cannot be filed, and additional pleadings cannot be permitted to be allowed as and when required. Having found no justifiable grounds to permit the revision petitioners to file additional written statement, the trial Court disallowed their request.

7. This Court does not find any reasons whatsoever to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A.No.486 of 2022 in O.S.No.122 of

2013 dated 07.09.2022.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dt. 27.10.2022 vns THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2154 of 2022

27.10.2022 (vns)