Madras High Court
G.K.Mariappan vs N.Vijayakumar on 2 March, 2023
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.19136 of 2019
G.K.Mariappan .. Petitioner
Vs.
N.Vijayakumar .. Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 12.04.2019 made in I.A.No.01 of
2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Gobichettipalayam by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Sole Respondent : Mrs.B.Priya
for Mr.Duraikkan S.Phillip
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the Fair and
Decreetal order dated 12.04.2019 made in I.A.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of
2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, thereby
dismissing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to receive the
additional written statement.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
respondent filed a suit for recovery of money. The case of the respondent is that
the petitioner agreed to sell his property for a total sale consideration of
Rs.10,00,000/- and entered into written agreement for sale on 01.08.2013. On
the same day, he had received a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- as an advance and agreed
to execute a valid sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration. Though,
the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the
petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the
respondent filed a suit for recovery of money which was paid as an advance
without seeking any relief for specific performance.
3. The petitioner filed a written statement by denying the execution of the
sale agreement dated 01.08.2013. The further case of the petitioner is that the
suit property is an exclusive property of him and he never intended to sell the
same. The respondent is also a close relative of him. The petitioner was in
urgent need of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and approached the respondent herein. At
the time of borrowal of the said loan, the respondent insisted the petitioner to
give interest at the rate of Rs.1.50/- per month per hundred. The petitioner also
agreed to pay the said interest and borrowed the loan. At the time of borrowal of
loan, the respondent had obtained signature in the blank stamp paper towards
collateral security. Thereafter, the respondent had manipulated the agreement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
utilizing the signature obtained from the petitioner. Therefore, the said
agreement is unenforceable and also it is not a registered one. After a period of
five years from the date of the written statement, the petitioner filed an
application under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, seeking permission to file additional
written statement, on the ground that the respondent had set up one
Gurunadhan and filed a suit in O.S.No.04 of 2016 for recovery of money and
pro-note dated 24.03.2013, to the tune of Rs.4,67,140/- towards principal and
interest. The petitioner had entered his appearance in the said suit and contested
the said suit on various grounds. The said person is none other than the
colleague of the respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application
in order to produce the xerox copy of pro-note, plaint and written statement,
which may be read as part and parcel of the additional written statement.
4. A perusal of the additional written statement also revealed that mere
denial of the averments made in the plaint. The learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the Judgments of this Court, in order to substantiate his
contention that the defendants can be permitted to file additional written
statement, even after commencement of trial.
5. This Court held in all the Judgments that the Order 8 Rule 9 CPC does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
not say that no application for receiving an additional written statement should
be allowed after the trial has commenced. As per the said provisions, the
discretion is given to the Court to give a chance to the parties to agitate their
rights even raising subsequent plea for which the Court should not be rigid and
the Court should exercise their discretion liberally when it does not affect the
rights of the parties.
6. Admittedly, the respondent filed a suit only for recovery of money,
which was received by the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement for
sale to sell his property. However, thereafter, the petitioner did not come
forward to execute the sale deed and as such the respondent filed a suit for
recovery of money, on the strength of the agreement for sale. Whereas, one
Gurunathan filed another suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.4,67,140/-
on the strength of the pro-note dated 24.03.2013. In the said suit, the petitioner
entered his appearance and defended the said suit on various grounds.
Therefore, the plaintiff in both the suits are not the same person and the claim of
money is also on different transactions. The petitioner instead of filing
additional written statement in the suit filed by the respondent, can very well
cross examine the respondent, in the present suit as well as he can very well
cross examine the plaintiff in another suit filed by the said Gurunathan in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
O.S.No.04 of 2016, in order to defend both the suits. Therefore, the plaint, pro-
note and the written statement of the suit in O.S.No.04 of 2016 are no way
connected to the present suit filed by the respondent herein. Therefore, no
purpose would be served if the petitioner is permitted to file his additional
written statement along with the plaint, written statement and the pro-note of
the suit in O.S.No.04 of 2016.
7. Though, there is no bar to file an additional written statement even
after commencement of Trial, it is completely discretion of the Court to allow
the said petition seeking permission to file an additional written statement. The
Trial Court after considering the above facts and circumstances rightly
dismissed the petition for the reason that there is no connection between both
the suits, agreement for sale as well as the pro-note. Therefore, there is no need
to plead about the evidence to be produced.
8. Hence, the Court below had rightly dismissed the petition and this
Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and
this revision is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
02.03.2023
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
mn
To
The Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.
C.R.P.No.2960 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.19136 of 2019
02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
