Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4401 (MAD)

Rangammal v. Prema & Others

2008-11-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.06.2008 in I.A.No.554 of 2008 in O.S.No.191 of 1996 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 6/ defendants 6 to 11 under Order VIII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code praying for permission of the Court to receive the subsequent pleading/additional written statement. 2. The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.554 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the plaintiff has purchased portion of the suit property pending suit and that the same has been admitted by her in her counter and that the developments have been taken place during the pendency of the suit and therefore, these matters are brought before the Court by means of additional written statement with a view to elucidate certain new facts and that no prejudice will be caused to the revision petitioner/plaintiff in ordering the application to receive additional written statement and resultantly, has allowed the said application. 3. In this connection, it is to be pointed out that Order VIII Rule 9 deals with subsequent pleading and the first part of the Order VIII Rule 9 indicates a ban on filing of subsequent pleadings after the filing of the written statement but under the second part to Order VIII Rule 9 the Court at any time may require a written statement or additional written statement, in the considered opinion of this Court. However, the second part of the Order VIII Rule 9 has not conferred any right on a party to file written statement or additional written statement but they can project the same when the same is required by the Court. In fact, the general principal is that an additional written statement should not project a new case totally varying to that of the one already filed. Moreover, it should not also displace the stand earlier taken in the pleading but an additional written statement can be filed for denying or clarifying the fact and also bringing it to the notice of the Court, the subsequent developments of a case. 4. Moreover, it should not also displace the stand earlier taken in the pleading but an additional written statement can be filed for denying or clarifying the fact and also bringing it to the notice of the Court, the subsequent developments of a case. 4. As far as the present case is concerned, the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.191 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee initially as a lessee and later since she has purchased 43 cents out of 1.19 acres of suit schedule property, the respondents 1 to 6 want to project those facts by means of filing an additional written statement or subsequent pleading as the case may be. By bringing it to the notice of the Court in regard to the factum of purchase of said portion of property by the civil revision petitioner /plaintiff, the cause of action in the suit in O.S.No.191 of 1996 has not changed materially, in the considered opinion of this Court. Therefore, by allowing the interlocutory application in regard to the receipt of subsequent pleading/ additional written statement by the trial Court, no hardship and prejudice will be caused to the revision petitioner/ plaintiff in the eye of law, in the considered opinion of this Court. 5. On the other hand, the averments made in the subsequent pleading/additional written statement will only enable the Court to adjudicate the matter completely and comprehensively so that the controversies between the parties can be given a quietus once and for all. 6. Looking at from any angle, the order of the trial Court in allowing I.A.No.554 of 2008 to receive the subsequent pleading/additional written statement does not suffer from any serious infirmity or patent illegality in the eye of law and the view taken by the trial Court is a proper one based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.554 of 2008 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.