ULAGANATHAN Vs. KUMARASAMY CHETTIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.296 of 1990 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Jeyankondam. The plaintiff's suit was decreed on 29.4.1993 and the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending in A.S.No.158 of 1993 on the file the learned Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. In the said appeal, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 1999 praying the Court to permit him to file an additional written statement and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 27.11.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) The revision petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking permission to file additional written statement, has stated that he has specifically pleaded that the suit has been filed after a lapse of 12 years and he was in possession of the suit properties even long prior to the notice issued by the plaintiff. By mistake and oversight, he failed to raise specific important plea of limitation, which he was advised that he cannot agitate without any plea under law; that in all to put an end to unnecessary legal contention and with regard to the plea of limitation, he wants to file an additional defence by way of additional written statement. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit that

(3.) The said petition was resisted by the plaintiff. He has also filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the defendant is trying to introduce a new set of facts, which is inconsistent with his earlier pleadings. The trial court relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in a case of H.RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. A.MOHIDEEN reported in 2000-1-LW-420 (S.S.Subramani, J), wherein this Court relied upon the earlier decision reported in AIR 1958 MADRAS 383 (NANJAN VS SELAI), where it was held as follows: