Judicial efficiency necessitates prompt amendment of written statements to prevent undue delays in the legal process.

K. NATARAJAN, J.

------------------------------

OP (C) No. 1677 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT This original petition is filed for setting aside Ext.P10 order dated 10.01.2025 in I.A No.480 of 2024 and I.A No.481 of 2024 in O.S No.55 of 2006.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel, for the petitioner that previously the suit was decreed and the matter was remanded back and the petitioners were permitted to amend the written statement in A.S.No.127 of 2011. Accordingly, the petitioners had carried out the amendment and filed the amended appeals in the year 2013. Subsequently, the petitioners secured a commissioner application and has approached this Court by filing the original petition in 2016, wherein this Court stayed the proceedings, and dismissed the application in the year 2024. Thereafter, the matter taken up for trial, and the petitioner filed application for the extension of time to carry out the amendment, by filing application under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC , which can be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner is directed to approach the Appellate Court for extension of time.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter pertained to 2006 and is pending before the Trial Court for almost 19 years. The Court issued notice to respondent, and the stay proceedings is dispensed with.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though there is 14 days time granted in the CPC for carry out the amendment, the petitioner not carried out the amendment, but filed the application for appointing the Commissioner, which came to be dismissed. Subsequently, in the year 2016 to 2024, the matter was stayed by the High Court in the original petition No.2711 of 2016. Therefore, the First Appellate Court granted opportunity for the defendants to carry out the amendment in the written statement, but, it is not taken consideration even by the Trial Court as well as the parties to the lists. Even the petitioner did not produce the written statement, hence, the Trial Court rejected the application after the completion of three months. The Trial Court dismissed the application only on the ground that extension of stay shall be granted only by the Appellate Court, but not the Trial Court. Once the matter is submitted by the petitioner to carry out the amendment, it is the Trial Court to allow the petitioner to carry out the amendment, and to the defendant to file the amended written statement, and that was totally neglected by both parties as well as the Court and proceeded with passing the orders on other I.As and ultimately matter was stayed by the High Court for 8 years. Such being the case, in the interest of justice, as the matter was already went to First Appellate Court and remitted back in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit. Hence, it is required to direct the Trial Court to allow the petitioners to file the amended written statement by carry out the amendment, within one week from today.

Accordingly, this original petition is allowed, and the order is set aside, permitting the petitioner to file the written statement within one week subject to payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff.