Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
C. Mani – Appellant
Versus
T. Sivaraj – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Rajakumar
An application for filing an additional written statement may be rejected if the pleadings therein are redundant and the application is found to be a tactical maneuver to delay court proceedings.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, Salem, which dismissed an application for leave to file an additional written statement in a suit for promissory note, citing unnecessary delay. As the original written statement already contained a specific plea regarding the forgery of the suit documents, the Trial Court found the additional statement redundant. The High Court affirmed this finding, maintaining that no infirmity existed in the Trial Court’s reasoning. The core issue was whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient grounds to file an additional written statement specifically regarding allegations of forgery already covered by original pleadings. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that when a party has already pleaded forgery in their original statement, they cannot seek to file additional pleadings merely to protract litigation or re-litigate established contentions without justification. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of case history and lower court background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. determination on the maintainability of additional written statements when issues are already pleaded. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.540 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Athur, Salem District.
2. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner, seeking leave of the Trial Court to file additional written statement has been filed only to drag on the proceedings.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit promissory note and other documents filed along with the plaint are forged documents. Infact, in the original written statement filed by the petitioner, a specific plea had been taken by the petitioner that all the documents are forged and concocted ones. When such a plea had been taken, there is no necessity for the petitioner to file additional written statement.
4. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, seeking leave of the Trial Court to file additional written statement by observing that the said application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings.
5. This Court does not find any infirmity in the observation made by the Trial Court while rejecting the petitioner’s application, seeking leave of the Trial Court to file additional written statement.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It has been made clear that the Trial Court may decide the suit uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in this order. No Costs.
