Madras High Court
Meena Jawahar Palaniappan vs Headway Projects on 15 April, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
O.S.A.No. 92 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
O.S.A.No. 92 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No. 5313 of 2025
Meena Jawahar Palaniappan .. Appellant
vs
1.Headway Projects
23, 7th Cross Street, West Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai – 600 030.
2.Ms.A.Vani Priya
W/o. Mr.V.Sathish Kumar
Managing Partner, Headway Projects,
23, 7th Cross Street,
West Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause
15 of Letters Patent against order dated 22.08.2023 made in Application
No. 3874 of 2023in C.S.No.428 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.B.S.Jothiraman
For Respondents : No appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 03:24:47 pm )
O.S.A.No. 92 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN.,J)
The instant Original Side Appeal arises against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Application No. 3874 of 2023 in and by which,
the plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying to receive the reply statement.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the instant
Original Side Appeal are as follows.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.3,90,00,000/-. Disputing the above claim, the defendants has filed the
written statement. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff came up
with an application to receive reply statement, on the ground that the
defendants has raised new pleadings.
4. On hearing either side, the learned Single Judge has found
that there are no new pleadings, and the reply statement of the plaintiff is
further complicating the fact and law, and ultimately arrived at the
conclusion that there is no merits in the application and dismissed the
same.
5. Aggrieved with the same, the present Original Side Appeal
has been filed.
6. Inspite of name having been printed in the cause-list against
the respondent, none appears.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 03:24:47 pm )
that in paragraph 8 of the written statement, the defendants had set up
new pleadings that documents which were signed by them was only on
the bonafide belief and on the misrepresentation of the plaintiff, therefore
such pleadings has to be controverted by way of filing a reply statement.
8. We have gone through the reply statement of the plaintiff. As
rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the reply statement is more
than what was pleaded in that plaint and that the very reason assigned by
learned counsel to file a reply statement is to reply paragraph 8. But while
looking at the reply, it is in argumentative nature and we do not find any
reply there from. Furthermore for any defence taken by the defendant to
their claim, it is always open for the plaintiff to take appropriate defence in
accordance with law. Thus, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge,
the present reply statement is only further complicating the plaint
averments, and, therefore, we find no merits in the application.
9. In fine, Original Side Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
15.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 03:24:47 pm )
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
ssm
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 03:24:47 pm )
