HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1859 of 2010 ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali in I.A.No.276 of 2009 in O.S.No.43 of 2002 dated 23.3.2010. The said I.A. is an application filed by the petitioner – defendant seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement. The Court below noted the contention of the petitioner that certain facts were not appraised to her counsel before the written statement was filed necessitating an additional written statement being filed in the present case. The Court below observed that, while the suit was filed in the year 2002, the application seeking leave to file additional written statement was filed in the year 2009 more than seven years after the suit was filed; evidence had already been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff; the defendant had cross-examined the said witness; the present amendment was only an endeavour to cover the lacunas; both the petitioner and her father were doctors; they knew all facts of the case; they had also approached the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sompeta by way of interlocutory application; and, having kept quiet all these years without taking steps and despite cross- examining the witnesses at length, the present application seeking leave to file additional written statement was filed only to drag on the proceedings. Sri G.Rama Gopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh : (2006) 5 ALT 52 (SC) in support of his contention that inconsistent pleas can be taken in the written statement filed by the defendant. Learned counsel would submit that a liberal view should be taken, with regards granting permission for amendment, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Baldev Singh1, on which reliance is placed, relates to an application seeking amendment of the written statement and the observations made therein, by the Supreme Court, were on the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Be that as it may, the Court below has recorded a finding that the application, seeking permission to file an additional written statement, was filed seven years after the suit was filed; and the endeavour of the petitioner – defendant was only to drag on proceedings. The very fact that the matter was sought to be dragged on would cause undue hardship to the plaintiff who has instituted the suit. The jurisdiction, which this Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory and not appellate. Not every discretionary order passed by the Court below necessitates interference in such proceedings. The order of the court below does not suffer from any manifest or patent illegality necessitating interference. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. __________ 24-9-2010 asp