Judgment : The revision petitioner/defendant has filed the above said revision petitions aggrieved against the order dated 8. 2008 passed in I.A.No257 of 2008 in O.S.No.4615 of 1995,I.A.No.258 of 2008 in O.S.No.4616 of 1995,I.A.No.259 of 2008 in O.S.No.4617 of 1995 and I.A.No.260 of 2008 in O.S.No.6117 of 1995 respectively on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ., 2. The trial Court, while dismissing the said Interlocutory applications has inter alia opined that the trial has already commenced in the suit and therefore the amendment application filed by the revision petitioner praying to amend the written statement is not maintainable and further that no proper reasons assigned for bringing out an amendment and if any payment has been made during the pendency of the suit, the same can be proved through the evidence of defendant and inasmuch as the application has been filed belatedly and since inadequate reasons were ascribed for allowing the application, has resultantly dismissed the same without cost. .3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.257 of 2008, I.A.No.258 of 2008, I.A.No.259 of 2008 and I.A.No.260 of 2008 respectively dated 8. 2008 are contrary to law and unsustainable and that the trial Court has not analysed the importance of filing of the amendment application for amending the written statement in a proper perspective and that there is no principle of law that without any plea in the written statement , no evidence can be let in on the side of the defendant and that the trial Court has not considered another important fact that the trial of the suit means from the beginning of the commencement of evidence by the parties till the Judgment is delivered and that a liberal approach which is to be applied in regard to the amendment application has not been taken note of by the trial Court and hence prays for allowing the civil revision petitions to promote substantial cause of justice. 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner presses into service in support of his contention that a liberal approach has to be important in regard to the filing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the decision reported in Baldev Singh and others -vs- Manohar Singh and another (2006(6) Supreme Court Cases 498) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that a wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of pleadings, in such manner and on such terms as it appears to Court to be just and proper. 5. As far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioner/defendant has originally filed the written statement before the trial Court and later, he filed an application seeking permission for filing an additional written statement and admittedly that has been allowed on 012. 2002. Now the revision petitioner has projected I.A.No.257 of 2008, I.A.No.258 of 2008, I.A.No.259 of 2008 and I.A.No 260 of 2008 respectively before the trial Court, after a lapse of six years from the date of filing of an earlier application. It is not in dispute before the trial Court on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that P.W.1( Trustee) has been examined in full and the matter now stands for evidence to be adduced on the side of the respondent/defendant. It is an axiomatic fact that the delay or laches in projecting the amendment application can also be taken into account as a relevant consideration, when a Court of law considers an amendment application on merits. .6. A perusal of the averments made in the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant clearly indicates that the revision petitioner/defendant has taken an omni bus defence that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts etc., Subsequently the revision petitioner/defendant has filed its written statement mentioning the numerous particulars in regard to several amounts received from the revision petitioner towards rent in the form of list. In short in the said additional written statement, the revision petitioner/defendant has taken a categorical plea that the respondent/plaintiff has received a total sum of Rs.52,955/- towards rent. 7. It is true that technicality should not be permitted to hamper the Court in the administration of justice between the parties. In short in the said additional written statement, the revision petitioner/defendant has taken a categorical plea that the respondent/plaintiff has received a total sum of Rs.52,955/- towards rent. 7. It is true that technicality should not be permitted to hamper the Court in the administration of justice between the parties. However, on the basis of over all assessment of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court opines that the revision petitioner/defendant can speak about the amounts paid by him during the pendency of the suit through his evidence by way of elucidation and for the same an amendment application is only a luxury and a redundant and in that view of the matter, the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing I.A.No.257 of 2008, I.A.No.258 of 2008, I.A.No.259 of 2008 and I.A.No.260 of 2008 are perfectly valid in law and the same are not perverse and therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the revision petitions and resultantly the revision petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. 8. In fine, these civil revision petitions are dismissed and the orders passed in I.A.No.257 of 2008 in O.S.No.4615 of 1995,I.A.No.258 of 2008 in O.S.No.4616 of 1995, I.A.No.259 of 2008 in O.S.No.4617 of 1995 and I.A.No.260 of 2008 in O.S.No.6117 of 1995 respectively on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in these civil revision petitions. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner/defendant to put forward its case to establish the averments made by it in the amendment application by adducing evidence by means of elucidation in the manner known to law and in turn the respondent/plaintiff is given the opportunity to cross examine the revision petitioner/defendant in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Connected M.Ps are also dismissed.