ORDER These two C.R.Ps. are filed by the same petitioner, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. Petitioner filed O.S.No.36 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, against the respondents herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,43,581-86 ps., on the strength of two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), dated 23-8-1990 and 31-10-1991. Respondents filed individual written statements, disputing their liability to pay any amount. The suit is at the stage of recording of evidence of the petitioner herein. 3. The respondents filed separate applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., being I.A.Nos. 30 and 31 of 2005, for amendment of the written statements. The applications were identical, in all respects. They stated that O.S.No.90 of 1992 was filed by them, against the petitioner herein, in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount and for supply of certain material. The suit is said to have been dismissed, on 30-6-2001. A copy of the said judgment had already been brought on record, as EX.A-1 O. It was also stated that in terms of a document, which was marked as Ex. B-1, in O.S.No.90 of 1992, and which was taken on record in the present proceedings, as Ex. B-3, the liability under the MOUs stood discharged. On these lines, they wanted that paragraph 3-A running into about 4 typed pages, be added to their respective written-statements. 4. The petitioner opposed the application, raising several grounds, such as impermissibility of amendment, on account of the commencement of the trial of the suit; competence of the persons, who filed the applications; content of the petitions, affidavits, etc. The trial Court allowed the applications through common order dated 17-11-2005. Hence these two revisions. 5. Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications were not permissible, in view of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., through Act 22 of 2002. He contends that the persons, who filed the applications, were not properly authorized. He further submits that the paragraph, which is sought to be incorporated in the written-statements, lacks precision, and cannot be permitted to be added. 6. He contends that the persons, who filed the applications, were not properly authorized. He further submits that the paragraph, which is sought to be incorporated in the written-statements, lacks precision, and cannot be permitted to be added. 6. Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on behalf of Sri M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, learned counsel, submits that the restrictions placed on amendments, through Act 22 of 2002, do not apply to the present case, in view of the exemption provided for, under Section 16 of the said Act. He further contends that the deponents were properly authorized to file the applications. As regards the contents of paragraph 3-A, which is sought to be added to the written-statements, learned Senior Counsel submits that the effort of the respondents was only to apprise the trial Court, of the developments, that have taken place in the other suit, and that the orders under revision do not warrant any interference. 7. The subject-matter of these two revisions is, the validity of the common order passed by the trial Court, in the applications filed by the respondents herein, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., proposing to amend the written-statements. The objection raised by the petitioner, as to the permissibility of the applications, in the light of amendment, under Rule 17 of Order 22 (sic. 6), through Act 22 of 2002; is untenable. The reason is that, the restrictions placed on the amendments, do not apply to suits, in which the pleadings were filed before commencement of C.P.C. Amendment Act 46 of 1999, as is evident from Section 16 thereof. In the instant case, the written statement was filed, much before the said date, and the restrictions placed under Order 6 Rule 17, do not apply to it. This Court is also not impressed by the objections raised, as regards the competence of the persons to file the applications. 8. Now, it needs to be seen, as to whether the respondents can be accorded permission to add paragraph 3-A, to their respective written-statements. A perusal of paragraph 3-A, which was extracted in the applications, discloses that the object of the same is, to incorporate part of the judgment dated 30-6-2001, in O.S.No.90 of 1992 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in the written-statements in the present suits. A perusal of paragraph 3-A, which was extracted in the applications, discloses that the object of the same is, to incorporate part of the judgment dated 30-6-2001, in O.S.No.90 of 1992 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in the written-statements in the present suits. A substantial portion of the judgment therein, with introductory and conclusive paragraphs, was sought to be made part of the written-statements. The introductory part of sub-paragraph, briefly narrates the purport of the judgment and the concluding sub-paragraph, attempts to explain as to the consequences that flow from the judgment. Though it was desirable to extract the whole paragraph 3-A, for better appreciation, this Court desisted from doing so, lest, the judgment in the C.R.Ps., becomes unduly long. Suffice it to say that, more than two typed pages of the judgment in O.S.No.90 of 1992, is sought to be made part of the written-statements, in the present suits. The trial Court did not bestow its attention, as to the permissibility of such a course, obviously because submissions do not appear to have been made on these lines. 9. The pleadings in a suit, be it, plaint or written-statement represent the substance of the respective stands of the parties, vis-a-vis, the dispute. Order VI C.P.C., mandates a clear distinction between a precise pleading and the evidence, which is to be adduced to substantiate it. Rule 2 thereof exhorts the parties to maintain precision in the pleadings; restricting it, to the statement of material facts, on which the party relies for the claim or defence, and to desist from mixing the same, with evidence. It is beneficial to extract Rule 2 of Order VI, which reads as under: "Order VI Rule 2: Pleading to state material facts and not evidence:- (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words". 10. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words". 10. This being the requirement under law, it becomes totally impermissible for a party, to extract in the pleadings, the portion of judgment in another suit. The purpose can be served by making a reference to the judgment, and by supplementing the plea, in the evidence. Precision is always treated as the hallmark of pleadings, and the whole stage of trial earmarked for explaining the scope of the pleadings and to supplement them, through evidence. 11. As observed earlier, what is sought to be incorporated in the written-statement was, nothing, but a substantial portion of the judgment in another suit. It would defy the requirement as to precision as well as maintenance of the distinction between pleading and evidence. 12. Therefore, the C.R.Ps., are allowed and the order under revisions is set aside. 13. It is made clear that it shall be open to the respondents to put forward their contentions, touching on Exs.A-10 and B-3, without any necessity of amending the pleadings. In case, they feel that the pleading must be amended, it shall be open to them to file applications, duly following the requirements under Rule 2 of Order VI C.P.C. 14. Since the suit is of the year 1996, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same, at the earliest. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.