Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2861 (MAD)

P. S. Jayavelu v. R. V. Subramani

2006-10-26

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.2005 made in I.A.No. 210 of 2004 in O.S.No.35 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner has been non-suited for filing additional written statement in the suit in O.S.No. 35 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2003 against the petitioner to recover certain sum of money on a pro-note dated 5.2.2000. The petitioner after taking his own time filed the written statement totally denying the receipt of consideration on the promissory note and also contended that the suit has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. While that being the stand originally taken, subsequently the petitioner filed an application to accept his additional written statement. That application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it is not only belated but also projecting a new case, which has not already been stated in the original written statement. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials on record and the decision with which reliance has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Subramanian and Others Vs. Jayaraman (1999 III CTC 52). 4. As already stated in the summation of facts, the suit itself for recovery of money on the basis of pro-note. The petitioner herein as defendant filed written statement totally denying the borrowal and execution of the promissory note. When that being the original stand of the petitioner, subsequently there is no question of filing of additional written statement alleging that the promissory note has been discharged. When the borrowal of the amount and the execution of the promissory note itself was originally denied, the subsequent stand taken in the additional written statement that the promissory note was discharged cannot be allowed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court non-suiting the petitioner for such filing of additional written statement. When the borrowal of the amount and the execution of the promissory note itself was originally denied, the subsequent stand taken in the additional written statement that the promissory note was discharged cannot be allowed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court non-suiting the petitioner for such filing of additional written statement. The judgment with which reliance was placed has been rendered on a different set of facts, in which the Court has found that the additional written statement setting forth necessary particulars in respect of earlier proceedings and putting forward plea of res judicata and estoppel, which has not been taken in the original written statement has to be considered liberally and has to be accepted. The facts of the present case as already stated are not similar not even comparable to the decided case. The case which is cited should have some relevance to the case on hand. The Court cannot mechanically adopt any principle without considering the factual matrix of the case. A single additional factor or variance in factors would make ocean of difference between the conclusions in the two cases. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Another (JT 2002 (1) SC 482). Hence the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Subramanian and Others Vs. Jayaraman (1999 III CTC 52) would not in any way advance the case of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the attitude of the petitioner in dragging on the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law and further filing of Civil Revision Petition against such an order is also ruse to drag on the proceedings. Hence this Court is of the view that the Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly the Civil Revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.500/-. Consequently, the connected C.M.P and V.C.M.P are closed.