AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R Raghunandan Rao, J
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following order:
The respondent had filed O.S.No.52 of 2023 against the petitioners herein, for recovery of certain money on the basis of pronote.
The petitioners herein had filed their written statement raising various grounds of defense. Subsequently, petitioners sought to file an additional written statement and sought leave of the Court, by way of I.A.No.112 of 2023, for filing such additional written statement. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petition has been moved.
Sri CH.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the pronote has been materially altered in as much as the date in the pronote was changed wherein the year 2015 was shown as 20115 and this material alteration requires to be brought on record.
The trial Court had dismissed the said application on the ground that the said alteration can always be pointed out during the trial and in any event does not appear to be of a consequence which requires an additional written statement to be filed.
I do not find any reason to defer with the view taken by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.