V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Commercial Court allowing an application for amendment of the written statement so as to include a plea of set-off, the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money has come up with the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent.

BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT REVISION:

3. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 253 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,56,10,000/- (Rupees twenty two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) from the respondent herein together with interest. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit was that the plaintiff agreed to provide a sum of Rs. 65.00 Crores to the respondent/ defendant for acquiring 10% share of the defendant’s interest in the development of a vast extent of land measuring about Acs. 22.00 and that pursuant to the said arrangement, the petitioner/ plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 14,65,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores and Sixty Five Lakhs only) on various dates during the period from 30.01.2008 to 16.09.2008; that due to economic slowdown, the proposed development of the property in the land belonging to the defendant and his friend could not go through and hence the defendant agreed in December, 2008 to repay the amounts paid by the plaintiff together with interest at 24% per annum; and that thereafter the respondent/defendant failed to honour the commitment forcing the petitioner to institute the suit.

4. Immediately upon service of summons in the suit, the respondent/defendant took out an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order, dated 03.03.2014. Challenging the dismissal of the said application, the respondent/defendant filed a Civil Revision in C.R.P. No. 1139 of 2014 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, the same was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by an order, dated 08.12.2014. The respondent/defendant carried the matter to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 16897 of 2014. But, the same was dismissed by order, dated 17.08.2015. The respondent/plaintiff also tried his luck by filing an application for review in Review C.R.P. M.P. No. 802 of 2015 in the Civil Revision Petition that was dismissed earlier, viz. C.R.P. No. 1139 of 2014. But, the same was also dismissed by this Court.

5. Thus, the respondent/defendant dragged on the proceedings for three years from the date of service of summons in the suit in the year 2011, till the year 2014 by pursuing an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Towards the end of the three year period, the respondent/defendant filed a written statement on 03.04.2014.

6. In the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant in the first instance (in April, 2014), he conceded (i) that the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 65.00 Crores for the purchase of 10% of undivided share in the land of an extent of Acs. 25.06 guntas; (ii) that the plaintiff agreed to pay the said amount in three installments, with the first installment of Rs. 15.00 Crores being paid on or before 25.01.2008, the second installment of Rs. 25.00 Crores being paid on or before 29.02.2008 and the third installment of Rs. 25.00 Crores being paid on or before 31.03.2008; (iii) that the plaintiff failed to honour his commitment for payment of each of those installments, but kept on seeking enlargement of time; (iv) that actually a sum of Rs. 14.00 Crores was paid by the plaintiff on various dates during the period from 15.01.2008 to 06.08.2008; (v) that out of the said amount of Rs. 14.00 Crores, a sum of Rs. 13.39 Crores was paid through chequ