Liberal approach mandatory under O.VIII R.1A(3) CPC for substantial justice over procedural delays.

ORDER

The defendant is the civil revision petitioner. He challenges the order passed by the learned V Additional District Judge at Madurai in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.376 of 2021 dated 11.03.2026, dismissing an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.O.S.No.376 of 2021 is a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. The plaintiff claims that the defendant had executed the promissory note dated 15.03.2020, promising to return on demand a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The defendant defaulted. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons were served on the defendant. The defendant conceded that the signature found on the promissory note is his. He pleaded that he was in a business transaction with Mr.Balachandran, the husband of the plaintiff. The line of business was sale of firecrackers. He urged that during the course of the said business, blank documents had been executed by him and misusing the said documents, the plaintiff has presented the present suit.

4.The evidence of P.W1 and D.W1 has been completed. When the case was posted for further defendant side evidence, he filed his proof affidavit along with certain documents. The learned Judge received the proof affidavit but not the documents, as they had not been filed along with the original written statement. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code.

It was withdrawn by the defendant. Subsequently, a new counsel was engaged and the said counsel filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2026.

5.The learned Judge took up the application for disposal and dismissed the same. He held that the plaintiff, having completed her evidence, the defendant did not co-operate with the Court. Hence, the Court was constrained to close his evidence. Thereafter, he filed an application to re-open the evidence, which was allowed on terms. It was at that stage, the application was filed to receive additional evidence was filed and withdrawn. The learned Judge pointed out that from 29.07.2025 onwards, the defendant was not co-operating with the Court for disposal, but has been changing the counsel, in order to come out with a new strategy, to drag on the matter. Consequent to this discussion, he dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.

6.I heard Mr.J.Sidharth for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.A.Haja Mohideen for the respondent.

7.Mr.J.Sidharth states that the documents, which he seeks to introduce are vital documents, which would go to show that there was an active business connection between the defendant and Mr.Balachandran (the husband of the plaintiff). This will throw light on the defense that has been taken by him in his written statement.

8.He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) by legal heirs and others Vs. P.Rajkumar, AIR 2020 SC 5486 and states that as directed by the Supreme Court, the Trial Court ought to have taken a liberal approach to the petition before it and failure to do so requires interference.

9.Mr.A.Haja Mohideen states that the defendant had admitted that he had executed the promissory note in blank. Hence, automatically, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, comes into operation. He further invites my attention to the evidence of D.WI to point out that during the course of cross-examination, the defendant has admitted that the firecracker business between Balachandran and the defendant never took off. He states that this is yet another attempt by the defendant to drag on the matter and keep the suit pending for a few more years.

10.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.

11.At the stage of dealing with an application under