Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 39 (MAD)

J. Anantha Mercelin v. M. Baraniraj Udaiyar

2013-01-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 06.09.2012, passed in I.A.No.4 of 2012 in O.S.No.269 of 2010, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that his client filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file the additional written statement, mainly on the ground that his father's name was mentioned as Joseph Selvakumar, but his father's name is Jeyaraj and the promissory note also does contain the material alteration, concerning which the plea also has not been taken before the lower Court. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would also submit that the lower Court simply expecting the evidence in this regard dismissed that application warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. I would like to point out that the suit itself is filed as early as in the year 2010, whereas the trial commenced on the plaintiff's side. While so, I.A.NO.4 of 2012 was filed seeking permission to file the additional written statement for the aforesaid purpose. 5. I am on the considered view that filing of such additional statement at the belated stage, after commencement of trial has to be discouraged. Over and above that, here, the case of the revision petitioner/defendant as put forth by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, is to the effect that he did not sign the promissory note and the plaintiff was also a stranger to him. In such a case, the defendant is at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff with regard to those aspects, for which no specific additional written statement is required at the instance of the defendant. While filing his chief examination affidavit, he could also set out that his father's name as Jeyaraj and not Joseph Selvakumar. Regarding the material alteration is concerned, such plea was not taken before the lower Court earlier and I do not think that at this stage, such a plea should be allowed to be raised. 6. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.