N SRINIVASAN Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, in I.A.No.322 of 1997 in O.S.No.904 of 1995 dated 24.2.1997 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for filing additional written statement in the said suit.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed on 17.11.1992 for a sum of Rs.3,000 with interest thereon. Hence the suit for a total sum of Rs.3,805 was filed as due from the suit promissory note. THE petitioner herein filed written statement contending inter alia that he had not executed any promissory note on 17.11.1992. and that the suit promissory note has been filed after correcting the month on which the suit promissory had been executed. It is further contended that it was only in January, 1992 the defendant had executed the promissory note in favour of the husband of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,500 and in the written statement certain further details are also given claiming that the amount due under the promissory note has been realised by the plaintiff and that the claim was barred by limitation.

(3.) MR.V.Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner contends that the failure to plead forgery in the original written statement was only due to mistake and that since the defendant had seen the promissory note only at the time of tendering the evidence as D. W. 1 he came to know that the suit promissory note had been forged. He would also further plead that even if the pleadings by the defendant in the additional written statement have to be held as contradictory to the earlier stand taken in the original written statement there was no bar for the defendant to set up such a pleading in the additional written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of Thangamani, J. reported in Natarajan v. Lakshmi Ammal and another, 1994 T.L.N.J. 96. Reliance is made on the observation by the learned Judge that the court may allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in order to determine the real controversy between the parties and it cannot be refused merely on account of a delay.