The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing valid reasons and meeting the criteria for granting leave to file an additional written statement under Section 151 of C.P.C.

The defendant is the petitioner before this Court challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.Nos.175 and 176 of 2017 dated 04.01.2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Full Additional incharge) Bodinayakanur.

2. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for permanent injunction restraining this petitioner who is the defendant in the suit from not to interfere with the suit. The petitioner also filed his written statement for the suit on 09.10.2012 itself and the suit is also taken up for hearing.

3. In this suit, evidence was taken and PW1 and PW2 were examined and the entire evidences were completed and the matter is posted for arguments. At the relevant point of time, this petitioner has filed the present petition in I.A. No. 175 of 2017 for re-open the case for the purpose of filing the additional written statement and filed another petition in I.A. No. 176 of 2017 seeking permission to file an additional written statement.

4. Both the petitions, the respondent/plaintiff also filed his counter by strongly denying the averments in I.A. Nos. 175 and 176 of 2017 on the grounds that though the suit was filed in the year 2012. The petitioner/defendant also filed his written statement and the entire proceedings were completed, but all in sudden when the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner, who is the defendant has filed the present petition for re-open the case for the purpose of filing an additional written statement.

5. The respondent/plaintiff also states that once the written statement was filed and the evidence were completed and when the matter posted for arguments on either side on 21.03.2017, the petitioner was unnecessarily filed the petition for the aim to harassing the respondent, the petitioner by using the Court in illegal method and drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff sought for the dismissal of both the Interlocutory Applications.

6. Considering both sides case, the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Full Additional incharge) Bodinayakkanur has dismissed the application on 04.01.2018, challenging both the applications, the present Civil Revision Petitions has been filed.

7. I heard Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in the year 2012 and the petitioner/defendant has filed his written statement on 01.12.2015, but after two years i.e., when the suit was posted for arguments on 21.03.2017, the petitioner/defendant has filed the application for re-open and only reason for filing the additional written statement that too under Section 151 of C.P.C.

9. The petitioner also states in his affidavit that for re-opening the case and for filing additional written statement only on the ground that some of the vital point in the original written statement at the time of filing the written statement was omitted and now he wants to include the same. He also states that his counsel has not properly explained his case properly in the written statement, therefore, now only after gone through the evidence of the plaintiff as well as the defendant, the petitioner/defendant has came to know that unless the petitioner has filed the additional written statement by narrating the point which were left out in the original written statement, he could not succeed in the suit. Therefore, it made clear that except the above reason, there is no other reason for re-opening the case and seeking permission for filing the additional written statement.

10. Admittedly, in the suit the entire proceedings was over and when the matter was posted for arguments on 21.03.2017, the petitioner/defendant has unnecessarily filed this application which will clearly proved t