R. MANOHARAN Vs. M. HARIHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 27.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.594 of 2012 in O.S.No.100 of 2011, by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner who would strenuously put forth his case to the effect that at the end of the trial, when the matter was posted for the defendants to adduce evidence, they came forward with an application in I.A.No.594 of 2012 under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file additional written statement. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the said application warranting interference for the foregoing reasons:

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden and it is for the defendants to prove their plea of forgery, but they wanted to raise a false plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his contract by paying the remaining sale consideration amount.