PACHAMUTHU Vs. RAMASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 10.12.2009, in I.A.No.700 of 2009 in O.S.No.163 of 2007, passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari.

(2.) THE Learned District Munsif, while passing orders in I.A.No.700 of 1989, in O.S.No.163 of 2007, on 10.12.2009 has among other this observed that, " this court is also of the opinion that the petitioner could not be permitted to file the proposed additional written statement when most of the cross examination of P.W.1 was completed and the matter was in the part heard stage. It is settled law that by way of additional written statement, the defendant could not introduce a new case or mutually destructive pleas etc.," and consequently, dismissed the application with costs.

(3.) IN any event, it is the further submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant that the Petitioner, as a Defendant, in law is entitled to take an alternative and contradictory pleas in the Written Statement. Further, there is no bar for the Petitioner/Defendant to take views, a merely inconsistent/destructive plea by means of a subsequent pleading.