Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D R Thulasi Prasad vs Suray Sri Harsha on 25 February, 2025
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010086852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3239]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 441/2025
Between:
D R Thulasi Prasad ...PETITIONER
AND
Suray Sri Harsha ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dt. 03.02.2025 vide I.A.No.45/2025 I.A.No.45 in O.S.No.219/2018 2018 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle,, the petitioner / defendant filed the present Civil C Revision Petition under Article 227 22 of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The respondent / plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of suit amount on the basis of pronote. The petitioner / defendant filed his written statement on 26.11.2018. After lapse of six years, the petitioner / defendant 2 filed I.A.No.45/2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement.
(b) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant has instructed his previous counsel stating that he discharged the suit debt by way of instalments collected by the agents of the plaintiff, but he simply mentioned in the written statement that due to longstanding financial relationship between them, the defendant did not demand for return of promissory note. As such, he sought for amendment of the written statement.
(c) The respondent / plaintiff filed counter contending that no amendment can be sought for after commencement of the trial. The suit stands posted for arguments. The defendant filed written statement as early as on 26.11.2018 and he filed the present I.A. in the year 2025 and the suit is at the stage of arguments. It is further stated in the counter that the defendant has taken an inconsistent plea contending that the suit pronote is forged and fabricated one. He further contended that the petitioner / defendant set up a new case stating that he discharged the promissory note debt through the agents of the plaintiff. As such, both the versions taken by the defendant cannot go together. As such, he sought for dismissal of I.A.
(d) Learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Baldev Singh v.
Manohar Singh1 and North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. 1 AIR 2006 SC 2832 3 Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2 and submitted that the defendant can take inconsistent pleas but not the plaintiff.
3. As seen from the pleadings of the defendant, they are mutually destructive in nature. On one hand, the defendant has taken a plea of forgery and fabrication of pronote and on the other hand, he is taking plea of discharge of debt through agents of the respondent / plaintiff.
Further, as seen from the order passed by the learned trial Judge, earlier the petitioner / defendant filed an I.A. seeking to summon the collection agents of the plaintiff who collected instalments from him. The said I.A. was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that questioning the said order, he filed C.R.P. before this Court, which was also dismissed.
5. It seems, in order to cure the said defect, the defendant has come up with the present I.A. seeking amendment of written statement. Further, the suit is coming up for arguments.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the order in I.A.No.45/2025 in O.S.No.219/2018 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle, did not suffer from any irregularity. 2 (2008) AIR (SC) 2139 4 In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, as there are no grounds to interfere with the order in I.A.No.45/2025 in O.S.No.219/2018.passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madanapalle.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K SURESH REDDY, J Date: 25.02.2025 MVA