Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1273 (MAD)

G. Boopathy & Others v. G. Thulasingam & Others

2010-03-25

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 25.11.2009, made in I.A.No.697 of 2009, in O.S.No.595 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. 2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the defendants 3 to 8 in the suit, in O.S.No.595 of 2000, filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the present Civil Revision Petition. The suit in O.S.No.595 of 2000, had been filed for partition and for separate possession of the suit schedule property. 3. The petitioners had filed I.A.No.697 of 2009, praying that they may be permitted to file an additional written statement in the said suit. The trial Court, by its order, dated 25.11.2009, had dismissed the said interlocutory application stating that it had been filed by the petitioners, belatedly and that the additional written statement, if allowed to be filed, would change the nature and character of the suit, in O.S.No.595 of 2000. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had stated that the additional written statement would not, in any way, prejudice the respondents and that a mere delay in filing the additional written statement cannot be a ground for the rejection of I.A.No.697 of 2009. He had also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- 1. THIYAGARAJAN Vs. MANIVANNAN (2007) 7 MLJ 444 2. THANGAVEL PILLAI M. Vs. COMMISSIONER, CORPN. OF TRICHY ( 2001 (1) CTC 461 ) 3. A.PERUMAL RAJ Vs. B.RAJENDRAN (2007) 4 MLJ 186 4. MUTHURAMAN Vs. MUTHUKUMARAN (2008) 1 MLJ 309 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioners had filed the first written statement, on 18.3.2004. Thereafter, they were permitted to file an additional written statement, on 3.4.2007. In both the written statements, the petitioners had not stated about the Will, dated 16.2.2000. The sole defendant in the suit, namely, G.Rajeswari Ammal, had died, on 21.1.2001, Thereafter, the defendants 3 to 8, who are the petitioners in the present civil revision petition, had been impleaded as the legal heirs of late G.Rajeswari Ammal. The learned counsel had also stated that if the additional written statement is allowed to be filed, it would prejudice the cause of the respondents as it changes the nature and character of the suit. 6. The learned counsel had also stated that if the additional written statement is allowed to be filed, it would prejudice the cause of the respondents as it changes the nature and character of the suit. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons stated by the trial Court, in its order, dated 25.11.2009, while dismissing the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.697 of 2009, cannot be accepted. Merely for the reason that the written statement had been filed, belatedly, it cannot be a ground to reject the same, as held by this Court in the decisions, cited supra. Further, it is noted that the petitioners, as defendants 3 to 8 in the suit, had stated in their written statement filed earlier that the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, have no right to the suit schedule property. Further, it is noted that the claim of the petitioners regarding the existence of the Will, dated 16.2.2000, cannot be held to cause prejudice to the respondents, in any manner. Accordingly, as the order, dated 25.11.2009, made in I.A.No.697 of 2009, is clearly erroneous, it is set aside. As such, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, is directed to hear and dispose of O.S.No.595 of 2000, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.