P M VISWANATHAN Vs. V P PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.430 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Erode. This is a suit for recovery of money. THE trial started and while the plaintiff was in the box at the time of cross-examination, the petitioner was able to get an answer to the effect that there is a correction in the pro-note and that in the place corrected, there is a hole. Hence, he has come forward with the present application for receiving additional written statement containing a new plea with reference to the material alteration in the suit pro-note. In the affidavit, he has stated that it is further stated that since he comes to know that the suit pro-note was altered materially, the additional statement has to be filed.

(2.) THE said petition was strongly contested by the respondent by stating that prior to filing of written statement, the petitioner should have taken steps to inspect the disputed document but he has not taken any steps. Only to drag on to proceedings, he has filed this petition and the Court has got power to look into the document to find out whether any material alteration is there or not. It is further fluttered that the present venture is an abuse of process of law.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner Mr.Manokaran would submit that as per the settled law, the defendant can put forth a new plea by filing additional written statement even with inconsistence and even after a long time. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 528, in which the Lordships have observed as follows: