Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Promissory note forgery in Chava Srinivas vs Katta Narayana on 15 February, 2019Matching Fragments
8. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents opposing these amendments and it was contended that the proposed amendment cannot be entertained because earlier petitioner had admitted his signatures and now he tries to take a different plea.
9. By order dated 20.10.2014, the Court below partly allowed the application for amendment and permitted the petitioner to correct 3rd line of paragraph 3 of the written statement by substituting the word plaintiff with the word defendant therein. But, however, did not permit the petitioner to add the other plea in the written statement regarding forgery of his signature on the suit promissory note and also the plea that the blank signed promissory note which he has delivered to the father in law of the respondent is not the suit promissory note. It held that the petitioner is seeking to change his earlier plea admitting his signature and mentioning of amount in the suit promissory note and this cannot be permitted.