S. Manikumar, J.

Challenging the order of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, in I.A. No. 1614 of 2005 in O.S. No. 913 of 2004 dated 18. 2005, the petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Brief facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

(i) The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S. No. 913 of 2004 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, for judgment and decree against the defendant/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,411.50 together with Principal and interest of Rs.15,000/- and costs, on the basis of a promissory note which said to have been executed on 1. 2003 by the revision petitioner/defendant in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, in which, the revision petitioner/defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.100/- per Re.1/- either to the plaintiff/respondent or to the person, nominated by him on demand. In spite of repeated demands through the associates of the respondent/plaintiff to repay the amount as mentioned in the promissory note, the revision petitioner/defendant failed to do so, thereby causing unnecessary delay. The respondent/plaintiff contended that as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner/defendant is bound to pay the amount, as his signature is found in the promissory note. Since the revision petitioner was an agriculturist as on 9. 1938, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act do not apply to him at all.

.(ii) On the other hand, the revision petitioner/defendant denied execution of such promissory note in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and submitted that he did not borrow any amount, as mentioned in the promissory note. According to the revision peti-tioner/defendant, the suit promissory note was a forged document prepared by the respondent/plaintiff in his name by some other third party, viz., one Balachandran, with whom the revision petitioner/defendant had money transaction. He further submitted that the revision petitioner/defendant, borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the said Balanchandran in 1996 by executing two promissory notes for Rs.10,000/-and Rs.5,000/-respectively. Except a balance of Rs.1,800/-, the revision peti-tioner/defendant had repaid Rs.5,000/- to-wards the promissory notes and also a portion of interest to the said Balachandran. After the period of limitation, another turn of Rs.5,000/- had also been paid by the revision petitioner/defendant, but the said Balachandran did not return the promissory note executed for Rs.5,000/-. With the connivance of his relatives, who had money transactions with the said Balanchandran, the plaintiff/respondent has created forged promissory notes an. cheated the revision petitioner/defendant.

(iii) Pending Suit, the petitioner filed I.A No. 1614 of 2005 and submitted that on the date of execution of the Suit Promissory No dated 1. 2003, he was in Bondali, Karnataka. State, which is far away from Cuddalore. He was working as a lorry driver in a lorry bear induced the trip sheet maintained by him and examined another driver by name, C. Thangaraj. Therefore, he filed the above Interlocutory Application to receive the additional Written Statement, bringing the above facts for effective adjudication.

(iv) The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made by petitioner that he was far away from Cuddalore and further submitted that since the trip sheet is not a registered document, it was invented only for the purpose to drag on the proceedings. He further submitted that the signature affixed on the stamp paper by the borrower itself is sufficient to prove that the petitioner had accepted the offer to repay the amount borrowed under the promissory note and when the trial is almost over, filing of the Interlocutory Application at that stage, is only to protract the proceedings.

.(v) After hearing the rival submissions, the learned Trial Judge, observed that t