A PERUMAL RAJ Vs. B RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 08.04.2005 made in I.A.No.954 of 2004 in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondent has filed the above suit for recovery of money due under a promissory note. The petitioner has filed a written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. After framing of issues, the trial Court has proceeded with the trial of the case. On the side of the plaintiff, it is reported that two witnesses have been examined and on the side of the petitioner/defendant, D.W.1 alone has been examined. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.954 of 2004 seeking permission to file additional written statement. The respondent opposed the said application by filing counter stating that the petition has been filed so belatedly and the intention behind the petition is only to drag on the proceedings. When the suit has been pending from the year 2002 onwards it is too late to file this I.A. at this length of time. It has also been stated in the counter that the allegations made in the additional written statement have got no relevance to the issues involved in this Suit.

(3.) PER Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit has been pending from the year 2002 on wards and nothing prevented the petitioner from filing detailed written statement before the commencement of the trial. He would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2005(4) L.W. 482 (Chandru and others Vs. Ranganathan) he prays for dismissal of the C.R.P.