The duty of the court to provide opportunities for a party to establish their case and the liberal approach required to secure the ends of justice.

1. The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred Civil Revision Petition No.2034 of 2010 as against the order dated 08.04.2010 in I.a.No.23 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Udagamandalam.

2. The Petitioner/Defendant has focused Civil Revision Petition No.2035 of 2010 as against the order, dated 08.04.2010 in I.A.No.24 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Udagamandalam.

3. The Learned District Munsif, Udagamandalam, while passing the common order in I.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2007, dated 08.04.2010, has, among other things, observed that, '... Further, in this aspect already D.W.1 was cross examined and hence, now the claim of the Petitioner amounts to fill up the lacunas in his evidence etc.' and resultantly held that 'these petitions are not maintainable' and dismissed the same without costs.

4. Assailing the dismissal order passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2010, dated 08.04.2010, in O.S.No.222 of 2007, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant submits that the trial Court has misconstrued the scope of the applications filed by the Petitioner/Defendant seeking to recall D.W.1 and further to permit the Petitioner/Defendant to produce documents (Legal Notice dated 26.11.2004, Acknowledgment Card dated 30.11.2004 and the Certificate of Posting sent to the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris, dated 29.11.2004).

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant urges before this Court that the Legal Notice in question sent by the Petitioner/Defendant's Counsel and the Acknowledgment are all vital in nature and the contents thereof would clearly disprove the entire suit claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent.

6. The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant is that by marking the copy of the Legal Notice dated 26.11.2004 through D.W.1 (sent to the Plaintiff's daughter, Vimala), the Respondent/Plaintiff in Law can controvert or repudiate the contents of the said document and the principles of natural justice require that adequate/enough opportunities will have to be provided to the Revision Petitioner/Defendant to substantiate his case.

7. Further, an argument has already been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant that it is for the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant to establish his case/version of the defence taken by him in his written statement and as such, the dismissal of both I.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2010, dated 08.04.2010, would not stand scrutiny in the eye of Law.

8. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Respondent/Plaintiff, as P.W.1, during his Cross-examination, has denied the Legal Notice as well as the Acknowledgment Card etc. in question and in fact, there is no pleading in the proof affidavit of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and no tangible explanation has been offered for the absence of said pleading. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2007, dated 08.04.2010, which does not suffer any irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law.

9. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No.2 of the written statement (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant before the trial Court) wherein it is inter alia observed as under:-

".....Since the said J.A. Manjunath passed away as a sudden, the defendant settled the said loan with interest due totalling Rs.50,000/-to the plaintiff's daughter and widow of late J.A. Manjunath on 11.06.2004 by cheque dated 11.06.2004 bearing No.882023 drawn on UCO Bank, Udhagamandalam. During the said settlement, the plaintiff's daughter Mrs. Vimala told the defendant that the blank promissory note handed over to her husband was not found and therefore she promised to return the same to the defendant if it is traced out in the future and the plaintiff was pres