ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.
2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of amount, on the strength of a promissory note, which is said to have been executed for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The petitioner admitted the execution of the promissory note, but pleaded in his written statement that he received only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- , and not Rs. 1,20,000/-. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondent filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. During the course of cross-examination, it was elicited through him that the consideration for the promissory note was paid through a cheque, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. Certain suggestions were made to contradict this version. Therefore, the respondent felt the necessity to get the plaint amended, and he filed I.A. No. 1358 of 2003 to incorporate a statement to the effect that the consideration was paid through a cheque, dated 1-11-1999, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the said I.A.
3. Sri J. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment brings about an improvement in the plaint, as well as introduction of a new case. He submits that the respondent was not certain as to the nature of payment, and it is only after the written statement was filed and the evidence of P.W. 1 was concluded that the present I.A. was filed. He placed reliance upon Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C., as amended through the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2002, and submits that the application itself was not maintainable.
4. Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the amendment does not have the effect of introduction of any new case, and at the most, it supplements certain details to the facts which are already pleaded in the plaint. As regards the effect of the amendment to C.P.C., he submits that the suit was filed before the Amendment Act came into force and as such the application is maintainable.
5. The suit was filed for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note. It is true that the details and mode of payment of consideration are not pleaded in the plaint. The fact, however, remains that the respondent specifically pleaded that he advanced amount to the petitioner, and for repayment of the same, a promissory note was executed. The details and mode of payment are matters of evidence and they hardly need any support of pleading, once the basic pleading as to payment is there. Therefore, the amendment, in a way, is superfluous. It is settled principle of law that a pleading need not contain what is to be supported by evidence. A perusal of the order under revision discloses that the details of payment have already been elicited through P.W. 1 in his cross-examination. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amendment itself was unwarranted.
6. The plea as to maintainability of the application was not raised by the petitioner herein, in the counter affidavit. The fact, however, remains that Rule 17 of Order 6 C. P.C., as it stands now, prohibits amendment of pleadings, once the trial of the suit has commenced. In the instant case, the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination was filed on 6-2-2003, and P.W. 1 was cross-examined on 9-7-2003. The application was filed on 31-7-2003. The provisions of the amended Act apply to the present suit, since it was filed subsequent to 1999 (sic. commencement of Amendment Act, 2002), as is evident from Section 16(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2002.
7. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is, however, made clear that the mode of payment is always a matter of evidence, and the details thereof need not be contained in the pleadings. There shall be no order as to costs.