Madras High Court
Annapoorani vs G.Radhakrishnan on 1 August, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).No.3859 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.R.P.(PD).No.3859 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.20255 of 2022
1. Annapoorani
2. M.Rose
3. M.Manoharan
4. M.Suyaraj ... Petitioners
vs.
G.Radhakrishnan ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the
District Munsif Court, Sriperumbuthur in I.A.No.537 of 2019 in O.S.No.371
of 2012 and allow the same permitting the petitioners to file the Additional
Written Statement.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Namasivayam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Pattabiraman
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.3859 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order
passed in I.A.No.537 of 2019 in O.S.No.371 of 2012 on the file of the
District Munsif, Sriperumbuthur, wherein, these petitioners herein have filed
a petition under Order 8 Rule 9 to grant leave to file additional written
statement. The said petition was dismissed as against which, the present Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the defendants in the
main suit and the main suit was filed for the relief of declaration and
recovery of possession and to declare that the Settlement deeds are null and
void. Already they have filed written statement and P.W.1 was already
examined. At the time of cross examination of P.W.1, he denied the execution
of unregistered Settlement deed, dated 21.03.1971 executed by the
respondent/plaintiff’s mother in favour of the first petitioner/first defendant.
Therefore, they filed additional written statement to that effect and the same
has to be received.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The case of the respondent is that already the case is posted for
defendants' side witnesses after completion of plaintiff's side evidences. The
petitioners' have produced the unregistered Sale deed, dated 21.03.1971 and
the same cannot be considered as evidence for any purpose. Already, they
have filed written statement and also elaborately cross examined the
plaintiff's side witnesses. While so, now, at this stage of defendants' side
evidence, only to delay the proceedings, they have filed this petition.
Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the Trial Court, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on
either side. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend
that the petitioners are the defendants in the main suit and they already filed
written statement. While cross examination of P.W.1, he denied the
unregistered Sale deed, dated 21.03.1971 executed by the
respondent/plaintiff’s mother in favour of the first petitioner/first defendant.
Therefore, they have to file additional written statement and by receiving the
additional written statement no prejudice would be caused to the other side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
But the Trial Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the petition by
holding that the petitioners seek to introduce totally a new case raising new
please in the additional written statement and the additional written
statement will be of no help to this Court to decide the real controversy
between the parties. The above said observation of the Trial Court is
unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend
that the respondents have filed a suit for the relief of declaration and recovery
of possession and also to declare the Settlement deeds as null and void. The
petitioners herein have filed a written statement and thereafter, plaintiff's side
witnesses were examined and they were elaborately cross examined by the
petitioners. Thereafter, when the matter is posted for defendants' side
evidence, they filed a petition to receive the additional written statement
stating that the unregistered Sale deed, dated 21.03.1971 was denied by
P.W.1. Since the said document is unregistered Sale deed, it cannot be
considered as evidence for any purpose and therefore, the present petition
was filed only to delay the proceedings. The Trial Court also after elaborate
discussion, correctly dismissed the petition stating that the additional written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement is no way helpful to the Court to decide the real controversy
between the parties and they introduce totally a new case raising many please
in the additional written statement. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial
Court is in order and the present Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court heard both sides and also perused the records.
8. In this case, the petitioners being the defendants have filed a petition
before the Trial Court to receive the additional written statement and the
same was dismissed. It is an admitted fact that already the petitioners have
filed written statement and the plaintiff's side witnesses were examined and
the evidence of plaintiff's side was closed and thereafter, the case was posted
to defendants' side witness. At this stage, the petitioners have filed a petition
to receive the additional written statement. According to the petitioners, at the
time of cross examination, P.W.1 had denied the unregistered Sale deed,
dated 21.03.1971 executed by the respondent/plaintiff’s mother in favour of
the first petitioner/first defendant and therefore, they have to file additional
written statement. The petitioners in the additional written statement
introduced a new case by raising many pleadings. The petitioners have not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated any valid reasons to receive the additional written statement and now
filed petition after a long gap, that too, at the stage when the case was posted
for defendant's side evidence.
9. The Trial Court also after relying judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akverally
and Others reported in 2009 (15) SCC 528 dismissed the petition stating
that no prejudice should be caused to the other side such amendment or
acceptance of additional counter statement and also after referring the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and
Others vs Kiran Appaso Swami and Others reported in 2007 (5) SCC 602
stating that additional counter statement can be filed to add a new ground of
defence or substitute or alter the defence or even take inconsistent pleas in
the counter statement and permission for filing additional counter statement
may be granted as long as the pleadings do not result in causing grave
injustice and irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff or displacing him
completely.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the case on hand, already these petitioners have filed the written
statement and thereafter, plaintiff's side witnesses were cross examined and
now the case is posted for defendant's side evidences. Therefore, at this stage,
without any valid reasons, the additional written statement cannot be
received. Therefore, the Trial Court in this context, after elaborate discussion
passed a reasoned order by dismissing the petition. Therefore, the order
passed by the Trial Court is proper and it does not warrant interference.
11. In view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that this Civil Revision Petition has no merits and the same has to be
dismissed.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
01.08.2024
ssi
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
P. DHANABAL, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ssi
To:
1.The District Munsif Judge,
Sriperumbuthur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
