Madras High Court

Jeyabalan vs Ezhumalai on 6 February, 2023

                                                                                         C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED: 06.02.2023

                                                              CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                      C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020
                                                      C.M.P.No.6075 of 2020

                     Jeyabalan                                                   ...Petitioner

                                                                 Vs.
                     Ezhumalai                                                   ...Respondent


                                  Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

                     India to set aside the order dated 17.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2019

                     in O.S.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,

                     Tindivanam

                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.C.Jayachithra

                                        For Respondent      : Mr.V.Ragunathan

                                                             ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the

order dated 17.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2019 in O.S.No.6 of 2015

on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:-

The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.6 of 2015.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The said suit is filed for the relief of specific

C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

performance of sale agreement dated 12.11.2012 and for permanent

injunction. The written statement was filed in the said suit. The sale

agreement dated 12.11.2012 alleged to have executed by the petitioner /

defendant in favour of the respondent / plaintiff for a total consideration of a

sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and received advance sale consideration of a sum

of Rs.13,00,000/- from the respondent / plaintiff and additional sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- Pending suit, I.A.No.84 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner /

defendant seeking permission to file additional written statement by stating

that the original written statement was filed in english, hence the petitioner

could not notice the fact that the payment of principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- was not mentioned therein by the erstwhile counsel and

explaining the fact that the interest at the rate of 72% per annum, for 22

months, viz., a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- along with principal amount a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to one Vadapalani and dispersed the entire loan

amount in the month of November 2012. However, the court below

dismissed the said petition. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court

below erred in dismissing the petition by holding that the petitioner is taking

inconsistent plea in the additional written statement when compared to the

original written statement though it is settled proposition of law that the

petitioner can be permitted to take inconsistent plea in the written

statement.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the

petitioner is not adding any new case, only an explanation is offered as to

the repayment of principal and interest with details of month and year of

repayment, which was omitted to mention in the original written statement,

thereby pleaded to allow the present petition.

5. Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent /

plaintiff submits that earlier, the petitioner has filed written statement stating

that for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the 72% interest alone for 22 months, a

sum of Rs.6,60,000/- was paid, thereafter, in the additional written

statement, he has stated that for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was

received as loan, he has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- principal along with

72% interest for 22 months, viz., Rs.6,60,000/- to one Vadapalani during

November 2012. Since the said statement is contrary, on considering the

pleadings, the court below has rightly dismissed the application, which was

filed to receive the additional written statement, hence pleaded to dismiss

the present petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents placed on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

7. It is important to note that the petitioner / defendant initially at the

time of filing the written statement in the year 2015 had stated that the

“defendant could not repay the principal a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- due to

difficult situation. But the defendant has continuously been paying interest

a sum of Rs.30,0000/- to the said Vadapalani. He totally paid 22 months

interest of Rs.6,60,000/- as interest of 72% per month on principal amount

of Rs.5,00,000”. The petitioner / defendant accordingly had given chief

examination as D.W.1. Now, the petitioner / defendant in the additional

written statement has stated that he has paid the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- at the rate of 72%

in the year 2012, which cannot be accepted.

8. It is relevant to note that the written statement was filed by the

petitioner / defendant as early as on 04.12.2015, the respondent/plaintiff's

and the petitioner / defendant's side examination of witnesses were

completed, at this juncture, the additional written statement that too in the

year 2019 is not only belated, but also delay in tactics in order to drag on

the proceedings.

9. Considering the fact that there is no sufficient reasons / causes

stated by the petitioner / defendant for the delay occurred and the petitioner

has taken completely a new stand that the principal amount of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 72%, viz., a sum of

Rs.6,60,000/- has been paid to one Vadapalani way back in the year 2012,

and the same has not been reflected in the written statement, which was

filed in the year 2015 and taking note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the Judgment reported in 2006 (5) Supreme 943 [Baldev Singh

and Others etc., Vs. Manohar Singh and Another etc., has held that the

courts should be liberal in receiving the additional written statement with a

view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to render complete justice to

the parties, this Court is inclined to accept the additional written statement

dated 01.11.2019 filed by the petitioner, however, not inclined to accept 4

to 8 lines at Paragraph No.5, [which is extracted below] in the

additional written statement and the same shall be struck off, in view

of the fact that while filing the written statement in the year 2015, the

petitioner has stated that he totally paid 22 months interest of

Rs.6,60,000/- as interest of 72% per month on principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- and at present by way of additional written statement,

the petitioner has stated that he has paid the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- at the rate of

72% in the year 2012, which is contrary to the initial written statement:

“......gpd;dpl;L ,e;j gpujpthjp bgw;w U:/5.00.000-/ flid tlgHdp nfl;Lbfhz;lthW 72# tl;oa[ld; 22 khjk; bkhj;jk; U:/6.06.000-/ bjhifa[k; kw;Wk; nkw;go fld; U:/ 5.00.000-/ bjhifiaa[k; tlgHdpaplk; 2012 etk;gh;

khjj;jpy; bfhLj;J mriya[k; tl;oiaa[k; ,e;j gpujpthjp igry; bra;Jtpl;lhh;” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1117 of 2020

10. Accordingly, the court below is directed to take the additional

written statement dated 01.11.2019 on file by stricking off the above

mentioned statement. Since the examination of witnesses on either side

were completed, no further adducing of evidence is necessary based on

the additional written statement.

In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed

of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

06.02.2023

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order ssd

The II Additional District Judge,