Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1691 (MAD)

Nadanasigamani v. Rajendran & Another

2006-07-07

S.RAJESWARAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed against the order dated 9.7.2004, passed in I.A.No.555/2004 in O.S.No.690/1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.7.2004 made in I.A.No.555/2004 in O.S.No.690/1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti. 2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.690/1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. According to him, the property admeasuring 6.54 acres belongs to him, which he obtained by inheritance. Originally it belonged to his grandfather and after his death, his father and his brothers by oral partition and his father was allotted 5 acres. His uncle died intestate, his wife and her son succeeded to his share. On 16.7.1940, his father purchased 1.54 acres and became the owner of 6.54 acres in total. It is his case that after his father's death he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the respondents attempted to interfere with the possession, he has filed the above suit for the above said relief. 3. When the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and was being cross-examined, an Application was filed in I.A.No.555/2004 by the respondents/defendants for receiving the additional written statement. The said Application was resisted by the plaintiff contending that he was trying to bring in a new case by filing additional written statement. It was also objected to, on the ground of limitation. The trial court passed an order allowing the Application. Hence the Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 9.7.2004 made in I.A.No.555/2004 in O.S.No.690/1996. 4. The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that in the written statement filed by the defendants/respondents on 13.2.1998 it was mentioned therein that Ponnusamy, Ramasamy and Rathinam were each allotted Ac 2.54 cents out of Ac 11.07 cents in S.F.No.310/3. But a false case has been set up by way of additional written statement by stating that the elder Ponnusamy was allotted 1.53 cents on extreme north and 1.54 cents on extreme south which is a new case. But a false case has been set up by way of additional written statement by stating that the elder Ponnusamy was allotted 1.53 cents on extreme north and 1.54 cents on extreme south which is a new case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the order of the court below is a non-speaking one and it has not adverted to any of the objections raised by the respondent in the above Application. She relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2004 (2) CTC 742 (Subba Niacker, P. v. Veluchamy Naicker). 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents though they have been served. 6. The point for consideration is whether the additional written statement filed in this I.A.No.555/2004 could be taken on file for effective adjudication of the issue or not. 7. The trial Judge by order dated 9.7.2004 held that to decide all the issues arising in the suit, all the facts pertaining to the issue should be allowed to be adduced before the court. 8. Insofar as the additional written statement does not bring in inconsistent pleas and mutually destructive pleas, the same may be allowed to be taken on file to have complete adjudication. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was rendered by this court while considering the application filed before the trial court under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint. This court after analysing the fact found that originally the suit was based on ownership of property, but by amendment the plaintiff claimed easementary right and therefore held that such an inconsistent plea could not be permitted to be raised by way of amendment, that too, after commencement of the trial. 9. The facts of the present case is different and the judgment will not apply to the present case. 10. Therefore, I do not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by the trial court resulting in grave injury to the petitioner herein. 11. Hence the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.15477/2004 is also dismissed. 12. 10. Therefore, I do not find any manifest illegality in the order passed by the trial court resulting in grave injury to the petitioner herein. 11. Hence the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.15477/2004 is also dismissed. 12. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1996, I direct the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order preferably on a day-to-day basis.