Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 565 (AP)

K. Manaswamy v. P. Ganga Papamma

2001-06-11

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2001
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is defendant in OS No. 133 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Triupati, filed this revision petition questioning the orders of the learned Judge in not giving permission to file additional written statement, filed this revision petition. ( 2 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that one p. Gangamma claiming to be the wife of one P. Venkataramana filed OS No. 133 of 1999 for recovery of money basing on a pronote against the petitioner herein. In the written statement the petitioner has taken a plea that he does not know the plaintiff and he never borrowed any amount nor executed any suit pronote. ( 4 ) WHILE the trial of the suit was going on, the petitioner herein filed LA No. 2180 of 2000 seeking permission of the Court below to file additional written statement under Order 5, Rule 9 of CPC by contending that Gangamma is not the wife of venkataramana as averred in the plaint, but she is the wife of one P. M. Reddy with whom he had financial dealings and when disputes have arisen he approached the Sub inspector of Police, Alipuri, who recovered the blank signed pronotes from P. M. Reddy. According to the petitioner, the said p. M. Reddy might have fabricated the suit pronote in favour of his wife by using one such signed pronote. But the Court below dismissed the said application observing thus:"taking into consideration the stage of the suit which is at the cross examination of the defendant as DW1 and in view of the inconsistent self contradictory defences in the original written statement that the defendant never executed the suit pronote in the original written statement and the suit pronote is executed by the defendant as a blank pronote and handed over it to one P. M. Reddy husband of the plaintiff in proposed additional written statement, I am of the opinion that this additional written statement cannot be received in view of the self contradictory nature of the defences, in view of the inconsistent defences and also in view of the highly belated stage. " ( 5 ) MR. " ( 5 ) MR. Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent tried to support the order of the Court below by relying upon a judgment of this Court in m/s. S. K. D. Laboratories v. Bank of India, vijayawada, 1988 (1) ALT 657, wherein his Lordship Justice S. S. M. Quadri held that the Court cannot permit additional written statement containing pleas inconsistent with the grounds in the written statement. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner has taken a categorical stand in the written statement that he does not know the wife of the plaintiff and he never executed any pronote nor borrowed any amount from her. Now having come to know of the identity of the plaintiff that she is not the wife of venkataramana but the wife of one p. M. Reddy, she wants to take a plea to that effect by filing additional written statement. The said allegation, according to me, is a very serious one, if proved the plaintiff has to be prosecuted for perjury and if not, the defendant is liable for criminal prosecution for defamation. Further it is the specific case of the petitioner that the he had financial dealings with P. M. Reddy who, according to him, is the husband of the plaintiff and the police on a complaint lodged by him recovered the signed blank pronotes from that P. M. Reddy. I do not see any inconsistency in the said plea as contended by the respondent s Counsel. If it is proved that the plaintiff is not the wife of venkataramana but the wife of P. M. Reddy, will be in a better position to prove that the pronote was fabricated by P. M. Reddy by retaining one of the signed blank pronotes which might have been kept with him while returning the other signed blank pronotes. ( 7 ) HENCE, I have no manner of doubt to hold that the Court below failed to exercise its discretion vested in it in receiving the additional written statement and, hence, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to receive the additional written statement and proceed with the trial of the suit. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to receive the additional written statement and proceed with the trial of the suit. Since the trial of the suit was half way through, the same shall be disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.