Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 572 (MAD)

A. Rathinam v. K. Sellavel

2009-02-17

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. A summarisation and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.282 of 2005 for recovery of money based on pro-note as against the defendant. The defendant filed the written statement; whereupon issues were framed and the matter was posted for trial on the plaintiffs side; oral evidence was adduced and their side was closed. At that juncture, it appears the defendant filed I.A.No.772 of 2005 seeking permission to file additional written statement as per Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC; after hearing both the sides, the lower court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus: The lower Court without valid reason dismissed the I.A simply on the ground of delay; even one of the plaintiffs witness spoke about the coercion exercised by the plaintiff; accordingly, the revision petitioner/defendant prayed for allowing the civil revision petition. 3. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would detail and delineate, express and expatiate, the relevant facts to the effect that the defendant after filing the written statement, as early as on 11.06.2004, participated in the trial and cross examined the plaintiffs witness and when the trial is on the defendants side, he has chosen to file this I.A belatedly without any sound reason. In the additional written statement lot of new facts are sought to be introduced, which are not tenable during the pendency of the suit. 4. Perused the records including the order of the lower court. 5. At this juncture, I would like to recollect the trite proposition of law that in the litigative process, the defendant is given more liberty to amend the written statement or file additional written statement. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to place reliance on the alleged prevaricating stands of the defendant and highlight the same before the Court to his advantage and ultimately it is for the court to decide it. 6. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to place reliance on the alleged prevaricating stands of the defendant and highlight the same before the Court to his advantage and ultimately it is for the court to decide it. 6. Here, in the original written statement, which runs to a page and a half, a few facts are found spelt out including the facts about the earlier suit O.S.No.184 of 2003, which is one for declaration and permanent injunction and also about the alleged fact of the brothers of the defendant having colluded with the plaintiff and the plaintiffs brothers and sisters having intimidated the defendant with the help of the plaintiff. In the additional written statement, in continuation of the allegations as found set out in the original written statement, he narrated the various other facts also. 7. In view of the legal position that adequate opportunity should be given to the defendant to put forth even at times pleas, which are not in concinnity with each other, I am of the view that the I.A.No.772 of 2005 could be allowed subject to the condition that the plaintiff should be given opportunity to file his reply statement and also to recall his witnesses, if he desires to do so for adducing further evidence. 8. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the lower Court and the I.A.No.772 of 2005 shall stand allowed. However, I make it clear that the lower court should give due opportunity to the plaintiff to file reply statement and also to get all or any one of the witnesses recalled to adduce further evidence. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.