(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S. 7118 of 1996 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras is the revision petitioner.
(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed a suit for specific performance in December 1990 and petitioner filed written statement in July. 1992. Thereafter, the case was included in the list and plaintiff's evidence was also closed. When the case was posted for defence witnesses, an application was filed to receive additional written statement in March, 1999. By the impugned order, lower Court dismissed that application. Lower court refused to grant leave holding that the Same is filed at belated stage and no reason is given why this contention could not be raised, in the earlier written statement. The same is under challenge in this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) IN the affidavit in support of the application seeking leave, no reason is given why the contention now sought to be raised was not taken earlier. IN the affidavit in support of the application it is alleged that defendant after the agreement for sale has put up multi-storeyed construction in the property and having invested huge amounts on the building, it will be inequitable for Court to grant specific relief. He only said that he has invested huge amounts for putting up the construction. When the affidavit does not disclose any reason for not taking this defence earlier court was justified in rejecting the application. It is also settled law that while granting leave, Court will have to consider the stage of the suit, delay on the part of party on seeking leave and how far the opposite party will be put to hardship if leave is granted. IN this case, entire evidence of plaintiff is over. If fresh pleadings are allowed to take place, plaintiff will be put to hardship and entire case will have to be reopened. First written statement was filed in the year 1992 and it was seven years after leave is sought for, to file additional written statement. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is now here stated in the affidavit.