V KARUPPANNAN Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the fair and decreetal order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in I.A.No.16 of 2008 in A.S.No.31 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would set forth and put forth his arguments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: THE trial court while decreeing the suit held that even though there were oral and the documentary evidence to prove virtually the alibi of the defendant concerned at the time of the execution of the pro note yet those documents and oral evidence concerned were not backed by the pleadings. Hence, it necessitated the the defendant to file the I.A before the appellate court to seek permission to file additional written statement setting out the said virtual plea of alibi based on those documents and oral evidence. However, the appellate court on technical grounds, without viewing the matter in proper perspective simply rejected it. Hence, this revision.