ANTHONYSAMY Vs. CHRISTORAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No. 20 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 in A.S. No. 11 of 2011 filed under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Revision Petition. Provision, Order 41 Rule 3, CPC is extracted hereunder.

(2.) Written statement has been filed, by the defendants. Upon considering the pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur has framed the following issues for consideration.

(3.) Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, by judgment and decree dated 09.03.2010, has dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur. In the appeal, just prior to arguments, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed I.A. No. 20 of 2012 for an amendment. In the supporting affidavit, he has contended that while filing the original suit, in the Court below, he had furnished certain particulars to his counsel. But his counsel has filed the suit, without mentioning those particulars. In the supporting affidavit, the revision petitioner has contended that he is a illiterate person, not aware of the particulars mentioned in the plaint and when he had asked his counsel, as to why certain particulars were not included, his counsel replied that the same were not necessary for the suit and only at the time, when arguments were to be made, in the appeal, the counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant, in the lower Court, asked him, for certain particulars and accordingly, relevant documents were traced out recently and in the abovesaid circumstances, the petition for amendment would not be filed. In sum and substance, the revision petitioner/plaintiff, has pleaded ignorance and alleged negligence on the part of his lower Court counsel.