R LALITHA Vs. G RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the revision itself is taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 165 of 1999 laid by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money, viz. a sum of rs. 18419. 50 with interest thereon.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the revision petitioner/defendant is not entitled to file an application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC, after, the commencement of the trial of the suit and that the amendment proposed is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacuna, as the plea that the revision petitioner/defendant had not been served with notice by the respondent/plaintiff is not raised in the written statement filed in O. S. No. 165 of 1999. He further contends that the learned District Munsif, Polur, is right in accepting the contention of the respondent/plaintiff.