The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in allowing the filing of additional pleadings, serving the interest of justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order-dated 08.04.2005 made in I.A.No.954 of 2004 in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondent has filed the above suit for recovery of money due under a promissory note. The petitioner has filed a written statement denying the execution of the promissory note. After framing of issues, the trial Court has proceeded with the trial of the case. On the side of the plaintiff, it is reported that two witnesses have been examined and on the side of the petitioner/defendant, D.W.1 alone has been examined. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.954 of 2004 seeking permission to file additional written statement. The respondent opposed the said application by filing counter stating that the petition has been filed so belatedly and the intention behind the petition is only to drag on the proceedings. When the suit has been pending from the year 2002 onwards it is too late to file this I.A. at this length of time. It has also been stated in the counter that the allegations made in the additional written statement have got no relevance to the issues involved in this Suit.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and after perusing the records, the learned District Munsif by order dated 08.04.2005 has dismissed the said I.A. It is the said order which is now under challenge in this Civil Revision.

4. In paragraph 5 of the order of the learned District Munsif has concluded that the I.A. deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly without assigning any reason as to why, it was not filed in time. The learned District Munsif has further held that it is only with a view to drag on the proceedings, the said I.A. has been filed. Regarding these findings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the original written statement, it has been specifically pleaded that the suit promissory note was not at all executed by the petitioner and would further contend that the additional written statement is only to supplement the same by pleading the circumstances under which the plaintiff has been forced to file the suit by creating the promissory note. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his arguments saying that as per various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and also by this Court including the one reported in 2006(5) C.T.C. Page 580 (Kaliathal Vs. Murugathal and Others), the lower Court ought to have had liberal approach in granting the prayer for filing additional written statement.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit has been pending from the year 2002 on wards and nothing prevented the petitioner from filing detailed written statement before the commencement of the trial. He would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2005(4) L.W. 482 (Chandru and others Vs. Ranganathan) he prays for dismissal of the C.R.P.

6. I have considered the rival contentions made by the both the counsel.

7. As rightly pointed out, the lower Court has dismissed the I.A solely on the ground that it has been filed belatedly and further holding that the said move is only with a view to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily. Of course, it is correct that there is unnecessary delay on the part of the petitioner to file the additional written statement and also nothing prevented the petitioner from filing the additional written statement atleast before recording of the oral evidence. But on that score alone, the prayer of the petitioner to file additional written statement cannot be denied in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(5) C.T.C.Page 580 (Supra cited) wherein the learned Judge has relied on the