This proviso is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties will not unduly prolong the litigation and they are diligent in pursuing the litigation. Therefore, an application for amendment of pleadings filed after commencement of the trial needs to be considered keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted. In the written statement, the petitioner averred that he never executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time, that he never made part payments under the suit promissory notes and that he never endorsed on the backside of the two promissory notes. He has also specifically pleaded that the signatures contained in the promissory notes and payment endorsements are not his signatures and that the suit promissory notes are rank forgery. He has also stated that he has not received any amount under the two suit promissory notes at any point of time. By these pleadings, the petitioner specifically denied the execution of suit promissory notes as well as making of the two alleged endorsements by him besides denying his signatures on the suit promissory notes and alleging that the suit pronotes are rank forgeries. In the face of these averments, this Court is unable to comprehend as to the necessity of the petitioner to file an additional written statement with respect to the alleged endorsements and the purported alterations. If the petitioner has noticed during the cross-examination of the respondent that there were any material alterations at column No.12 and insertion of the signatures of the attestors before filing of the suit, nothing would have prevented him from eliciting these aspects from the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross-examination. The petitioner is silent as to whether any attempt was made by him to elicit answers on these features from P.W.1. In addition to cross-examining P.W.1 on these aspects, the petitioner has an opportunity of adducing his oral evidence wherein he can also bring out the features, which he allegedly noticed during the cross-examination of P.W.1. On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed for amendment of written statement is a mere ploy or subterfuge evidently to drag on the suit proceedings. Though the lower Court has dismissed the application for different reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek amendment of the written statement.

This proviso is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties will not unduly prolong the litigation and they are diligent in pursuing the litigation. Therefore, an application for amendment of pleadings filed after commencement of the trial needs to be considered keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted. In the written statement, the petitioner averred that he never executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time, that he never made part payments under the suit promissory notes and that he never endorsed on the backside of the two promissory notes. He has also specifically pleaded that the signatures contained in the promissory notes and payment endorsements are not his signatures and that the suit promissory notes are rank forgery. He has also stated that he has not received any amount under the two suit promissory notes at any point of time. By these pleadings, the petitioner specifically denied the execution of suit promissory notes as well as making of the two alleged endorsements by him besides denying his signatures on the suit promissory notes and alleging that the suit pronotes are rank forgeries. In the face of these averments, this Court is unable to comprehend as to the necessity of the petitioner to file an additional written statement with respect to the alleged endorsements and the purported alterations. If the petitioner has noticed during the cross-examination of the respondent that there were any material alterations at column No.12 and insertion of the signatures of the attestors before filing of the suit, nothing would have prevented him from eliciting these aspects from the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross-examination. The petitioner is silent as to whether any attempt was made by him to elicit answers on these features from P.W.1. In addition to cross-examining P.W.1 on these aspects, the petitioner has an opportunity of adducing his oral evidence wherein he can also bring out the features, which he allegedly noticed during the cross-examination of P.W.1. On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed for amendment of written statement is a mere ploy or subterfuge evidently to drag on the suit proceedings. Though the lower Court has dismissed the application for different reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek amendment of the written statement.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)