When the C.M.P. No. 3320 of 1993 came up for argument, the C.R.P. itself was heard. Revision petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No. 474 of 1993 of the Additional Munsiffs Court, Irinjalakuda. He filed I.A.No. 3406 of 1993 for amending the written statement. The lower court dismissed the said petition. This revision is directed against the said order.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the amendment sought was to incorporate a contention that the petitioner has only a limited liability. The suit was one for recovery of money. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the lower court dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the petition is belated. The amendment was sought at the time when the case came up for hearing. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner hat it was a wrong exercise of jurisdiction to dismiss the petition under O.VI R.17 C.P.C. & n the ground of mere delay. With due regard to the liberal construction that O.VI R.17 CPC should receive, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of mere delay, if otherwise, the petition is maintainable. He relied on the decision in Shambli