The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay alone is not sufficient to refuse the amendment of pleadings, and courts should exercise discretion liberally in allowing additional pleadings.

1. This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 22.12.2009, made in I.A.No.423 of 2009 in O.S.No.175 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants 1 and 2, whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.175 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

3. The respondents filed the suit for declaration and other relief. The petitioners filed written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. In the written statement, the petitioners reserved their right to file additional written statement. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed and the trial was commenced. P.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondents and was cross-examined in part by the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners took time for further cross-examination of P.W.1. But the petitioners did not appear either in person or through their counsel. Therefore, an ex-parte decree was passed. The petitioners filed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and the same was allowed on payment of costs. After paying the cost, the petitioners filed applications in I.A.No.423 of 2009, for permission to file additional written statement. The first petitioner has stated that due to his work, he is often going to Thiruppur and the written statement could not be filed with full particulars and entire defence was not taken at the time of filing of the written statement. Further, the respondents were promising to settling the matter, but contrary to the talks of settlement, they are proceeding with the suit. Therefore, in the interests of justice, additional written statement must be taken on file.

4. The respondents denied all the allegations made by the petitioners and stated that only to drag on the proceedings and to fill up the lacunae, the petitioners filed the present application. After chief- examination and cross-examination of P.W.2, this application has been filed and therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the application on the ground of delay.

5. The learned Judge after considering the materials on record, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners have filed the application after three years of filing of the suit, main witness on behalf of the respondents have been examined and the documents have been marked, the present application has been filed to set right the evidence, which are against them. The learned Judge also held that they ought to have filed their entire defence in the original written statement itself. As against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

6. Heard Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.J.Mathesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following Judgments:

(i) Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Others reported in 2009 (7) MLJ 1081 (SC), wherein at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, it has been held as follows:-

"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the additional counter statement as well as the original counter statement and the application for fixation of fair rent and other materials on record, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Authorities in the exercise of its revisional power. A plain reading of the impugned order of the High Court would show that two grounds were given by the High Court to reject the application for acceptance of the additional counter statement filed by the appellant. The first ground was that the appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of an additional counter statement when examination of P.W.1 was already over. So far as this ground is concerned, we do not find that delay is a ground for which the additional count