The main legal point established is that applications for additional written statements should be allowed liberally and in the interest of justice, especially when no inconsistent stand has been taken.

The revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit challenging the order passed in I.A. No.508 of 2008 in O.S. No.942 of 2004, wherein the application filed by the petitioner seeking to file additional written statement was rejected on the ground of delay and on the ground that a new case cannot be introduced. Challenging the said order of the Court below, the revision has been filed.

2. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No.942 of 2004 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. A written statement was filed by the petitioner and after the evidence of the plaintiffs as well as the petitioner side is over, the present application has been filed in I.A.No.508 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement. The said application has been filed only on the ground that they have unearthed new documents only now.

3. The Court below has dismissed the said application primarily on the ground of delay and also holding that if a new case is introduced, the same would cause prejudice to the respondents. According to the learned counsel, only during the examination of P.W.1 and only when Ex.A1 was marked on the side of the plaintiffs, the petitioner was made to look out for the documents in support of his case. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the delay is unavoidable and reasonable, since only because of the marking of Ex.A1 coupled with evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner was made to search for the other documents and thereafter, the present application seeking permission to file additional written statement will have to be allowed liberally and in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that no mutually destructive plea has been taken and additional written statement can be filed when the earlier written statement has not mentioned those facts earlier.

4. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments reported in 2004 (4) CTC 759 (T.R.Govindasamy and others Vs. T.R.Natarajan and others), 2005 (5) CTC 38 (Radhabai Ammal and another Vs. N.Loganathan and others), 2007 (3) CTC 554 (S.Suresh Vs. Sivabalakannan and others), 2007 (5) CTC 722 (Muthuraman Vs. Muthukumaran), 2008 (4) TNLJ 525 (Civil) (Mrs.N.Vimala rep. by her Power Agent Mr. M. Nagarajan Vs. 1. K. Krishnan, 2. Mrs. Prema, 3. Sivakumar 4. K.Boopathy) in support of his contention that when the additional written statement sought to be filed is not inconsistent with the earlier statement and the plea raised is no mutually destructive, then the Civil Court will have to allow the said application liberally with a view to decide the dispute between the parties by affording proper opportunities.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the evidence has been closed and at that stage the present application has been filed. It is further stated that the inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken and the attempt of the petitioner to file written statement in pursuant to the evidence given by P.W.1 read with Ex.A10 cannot be permitted. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (3) LW 205 (Chinnammal Vs. Shanmugam and 2 others) and the judgment reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 959 (Tajdeen Vs. Abdul Muthalif) in support of his case that the additional written statement cannot be allowed to be filed on a belated stage.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsels appeared for the parties. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the counter filed by the respondents would show that the present application has been filed in pursuant to the evidence of P.W.1 read with the document marked under Ex.A10. The Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 provides that unless due diligence is shown by a party concerned the permission for amendment or additional written statement cannot be allowed. In this case, as stated above it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present application has been fil