Court has wide discretion in granting a chance to parties to agitate their rights even raising subsequent plea when it does not affect the rights of the parties.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 21.3.2005, made in I.A.No.247/2004 in O.S.No.99/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 21.3.2005, made in I.A.No.247/2004 in O.S.No.99/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.

2. The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.21/1999 on the file of the Addl.Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai for recovery of money on the basis of made- over promissory note from his father, against the petitioner/defendant. Pending suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.247/2004 seeking permission for filing additional written statement. The trial court by order dated 21.3.2005 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.2005, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed by them and also the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

4. The following decisions are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner:-

1) 1999(1) CTC 458 (Murugesan, S. v. S.Pethaperumal)

2) 1999(3) CTC 52 (Subramanian v. Jayaraman)

3) 2001(1) CTC 461 (Thangavel Pillai v. Commissioner, Corpn. of Trichy)

4) 2003(2) L.W. 395 (Thirupathi v. Kothai Aachi)

5) 2005(5) CTC 785 (Muthusamay v. Thangaraj)

5. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,360/- on the basis of pronote executed by the revision petitioner in favour of one Ramu Naidu, who made over the same to the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant by contending that he never borrowed any money from the said Ramu Naidu, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and he only borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from one Kuppachari and executed a pronote in the name of one Velayudha Achari who is a benami of the said Kuppachari and the pronote was attested by the plaintiff's father Ramu Naidu as a witness. The defendant further averred in the written statement that on 2.2.1996 a fresh pronote for a sum of Rs.40,000/- was taken by the above said Kuppachari in the name of plaintiff's father Ramu Naidu and the earlier pronote executed by the defendant in the name of Velayudha Achari was discharged and returned to the defendant. The defendant promised to file the discharged pronote at the time of trial.

6. It is further averred by the defendant in the written statement that Kuppachari and Ramu Naidu approached him in the year 1997 and pressurized him to discharge the amount. Kuppachari offered to take the Hero Honda Motor Cycle of the defendant for the amount due on the suit pronote standing in the name of Ramu Naidu. This was accepted by the defendant and the motorcycle was adjusted for the amount covered under the suit pronote and the same was already discharged by the defendant.

7. With the above pleadings in the written statement the petitioner/defendant resisted the suit.

8. While so, he filed an application in I.A.No.247/2004 under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit him to file additional written statement. The reasons given by him in support of the application in the affidavit is that after selling away his Hero Honda Motorcycle, the suit pronote was discharged and the plaintiff's father Ramu Naidu executed a discharge receipt in his favour on 10.1.1997. The receipt was kept in his cloth shop in which a fire took place and at that time he removed all the records from the cloth shop in a hurry and kept them in his house. The said receipt was traced out by him now and hence it is necessary for him to file additional written statement narrating the above facts. In the additional written statement these facts were averred and the same was sought to be filed under Order 8