R.Manoharan vs K.M.Saminathan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9417 Mad

                                                            1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 09.04.2021

                                                          Coram

                                    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                           C.R.P. (PD) No.797 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             C.M.P.No.6672 of 2021



                      R.Manoharan                    ..     Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

                                                           Vs

                      K.M.Saminathan                 ..     Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff




                           Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Code of Civil
                      Procedure to set aside the order and decretal order dated 06.08.2020
                      in I.A.No.159 of 2020 in O.S.No.364 of 2018 passed by the Additional
                      Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.


                                 For Petitioner             ..    Mr.C.S.Saravanan


                                 For Respondent             ..    No appearance




                                                          ORDER

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order in

I.A.No.159 of 2020 in O.S.No.364 of 2018 dated 06.08.2020 which is

now pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.

2.The said Interlocutory Application had been filed by the

petitioner who is shown as the defendant in the suit. The suit had

been filed by the plaintiff K.M.Saminathan S/o Muthusamy seeking a

judgment and decree against the present petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.6,46,250/- together with interest from the date of filing of the suit

till the date of realization on Rs.5,00,000/- and also for the costs of

the suit.

3.The cause of action of the suit had arisen on 18.12.2016. The

present petitioner / defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

and had executed a promissory note for the said sum. It is the

grievance of the plaintiff that the said amount had not returned back.

4.The petitioner had also filed written statement. In paragraph

7 of the written statement, he had very specifically stated that there

http://www.judis.nic.in

is a witness P.Saminathan who is the Attester of the Promissory Note

and who is working as a Manager and it is also stated that

P.Saminathan was running a Finance Company under the name

Sakthi Murugan Finance and also financing the purchase of two

wheelers and four wheelers and also lending money for the same.

5.Thereafter issues had been framed and the plaintiff also

examined his witness. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and

also examined P.Saminathan, Attester to the Promissory Note as PW-

2. Both the witnesses were also cross-examined. The suit is now

posted for recording evidence on the side of the present petitioner /

defendant in the suit.

6.At this stage after cross-examining the witnesses for the

plaintiff who incidentally were K.M.Saminathan / plaintiff and

P.Saminathan / Attester to the Promissory Note, the petitioner herein

had filed I.A.No.159 of 2020 taking advantage of Order VI Rule 17 of

CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The amendment which

was sought was to amend the initial of Saminathan which has been

mentioned in the written statement at paragraph 7 from

P.Saminathan to K.M.Saminathan.

http://www.judis.nic.in

7.The learned Judge in the course of his order dated 06.08.2020

which is now the subject matter of the present Revision Petition had

given two reasons for rejecting the said application namely, that the

issues have been settled and the plaintiff has examined himself as

PW-1 and P.Saminathan as PW-2 and that the present petitioner /

defendant had cross-examined the witness in full. He had also had an

occasion to recall PW-1 and cross-examine him further. The

questions regarding identity or that the initials mentioned were not

correct had not put to either one of the two witnesses. If those

questions had been put, then there could have been some

reasonableness in seeking amendment of the initial of P.Saminathan

mentioned in the written statement. Not having put those questions

to the witnesses and not having drawn out any answer either in the

affirmative or negative, the petitioner herein cannot seek to amend

the written statement behind the back of the plaintiff. It is also

pertinent to point out that the further reason given is also correct,

namely, that amendment may not be possible, after trial had

commenced.

8.I do not find any error in the order of the learned Judge and

therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner

herein may give an explanation in his evidence with respect to the

http://www.judis.nic.in

correct name of Saminathan, whether it is P.Saminathan or

K.M.Saminathan. But again such evidence can only be appreciated

only in the manner in which any evidence without pleadings can be

appreciated.

9.With the above observations, this Revision Petition is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous

Petition is also closed.

09.04.2021 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No smv

To The Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

http://www.judis.nic.in

smv

C.R.P. (PD) No.797 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.6672 of 2021

09.04.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in