Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 974 (MAD)

Nadanasigamani v. R. Rajendran & Another

2006-04-06

T.V.MASILAMANI

body2006
Judgment :- Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal orders dated 9.7.2004 made in I.A.No.554 of 2004 in O.S.No.86 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.86 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the petition in I.A.No.554 of 2004 in the said suit for reception of the reply statement filed by them. The learned District Munsif having heard both sides permitted the respondents to file the reply statement in the suit. Hence, the revision. 3. Heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Though the respondents received the notice in this proceedings, they have neither appeared in person nor represented by any counsel. Hence their names have been printed in the cause list. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the objection regarding the reception of reply statement filed by the respondents on the ground that the application to receive the reply statement was barred by limitation, as the valuable rights accrued to the revision petitioner would have been extinguished and that since the respondents had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application to receive the reply statement, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court P. Subba Naicker V. Veluchamy Naicker (2004 (2) C.T.C. 742). The said decision was rendered in connection with the amendment of the plaint after the Amendment Act, 2002 with reference to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. came into force on and from 1.7.2002 by amending the earlier provision to the effect that no amendment of the plaint can be allowed after commencement of trial of the suit unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence plaintiff could not have raised such plea before the commencement of trial. 6. In the suit therein, the respondents came forward with the application to receive the reply statement in view of certain facts which came to light only when P.W.1 was cross-examined in part and during such cross-examination such facts relating to the title with reference to the suit property were made known enabling the respondents to file the application for reception of reply statement. It is no doubt true that such facts as revealed by P.W.1 in the box could not have been within the special knowledge of the respondents before such evidence of P.W.1 came to be adduced and therefore this Court is of the opinion that in spite of due diligence on the part of the respondents, they could not have known such particulars so as to file the reply statement earlier. 7. Moreover, as per the records of the case, it is seen that the filing of reply statement by the respondents could not have changed the character of the suit or nature of the claim made originally in the plaint and hence on this aspect also, the reply statement filed by the respondents could not have caused any prejudice to the revision petitioner. 8. In Indo International Ltd V. Continental Carriers Private Ltd ( 2004 (3) C.T.C. 353 ), it was held that the plaintiff can seek permission of the court to explain the plea of limitation put forth in the written statement by the defendant and that the courts have discretion to allow the plaintiff to file reply statement to explain the position which is not inconsistent with the earlier plea raised in the plaint. 9. In view of the proviso to the amended provision under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., the application filed by the respondents is in my opinion maintainable in law and therefore this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in allowing the application filed by the respondents. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7531 of 2005 is closed. However, there is no order as to costs. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit by the end of September, 2006.