Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1626 (MAD)

S. Sivakumar v. V. Balasubramanian

2010-04-07

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 20.8.2009, made in I.A.No.645 of 2009, in O.S.No.285 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode. 2. The petitioners, who are the defendants 2 to 6 in the suit, in O.S.No.285 of 2006, had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.645 of 2009, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to receive the additional written statement to be filed by the petitioners. 3. The respondents in the present civil revision petition had filed the suit, in O.S.No.285 of 2006, praying for a decree restraining the defendants, their men agents and assigns from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by means of a permanent injunction and to declare the sale deed, dated 25.7.2006, registered as Document No.2057 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Surampatti, Erode, executed by the first defendant, in favour of defendants 2 to 6, as null and void and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 6, their agents and assigns from alienating the suit property and from creating encumbrance over the said property. 4. The petitioners had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.645 of 2009, stating that the petitioners had come to learn that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable, without the prayer for setting aside the sale deed, dated 25.7.2006. Since, such a plea had not been raised in the written statement filed by the petitioners, due to over sight, they may be permitted to file an additional written statement, as it would not change the character of the suit and as the said plea is only a legal proposition. 5. The trial Court by its order, dated 20.8.2009, had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners stating that it is not maintainable, as the trial in the suit had commenced. It had also stated that the plaintiffs witnesses had been examined and the suit had been listed for examination of the defendants witnesses. At that stage, the petitioners had filed the application for filing the additional written statement. Therefore, the trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioners, made in I.A.No.645 of 2009. It had also stated that the plaintiffs witnesses had been examined and the suit had been listed for examination of the defendants witnesses. At that stage, the petitioners had filed the application for filing the additional written statement. Therefore, the trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioners, made in I.A.No.645 of 2009. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed the present civil revision petition before this Court, challenging the order of the trial Court, dated 20.8.2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision reported in Olympic Industries V. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others [2009(7) MLJ 1081 (SC)] "I. "Delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement and even if some prejudice was caused, it could easily be compensated by costs." II. "The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, could interfere with the concurrent orders of the Tribunals below only if it finds that the findings of the tribunals below were perverse or arbitrary, irregular or improper."" 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. P.A.Jayalakshmi V. H.Saradha (2009(4) CTC 201) 2. Sekar V. A.N.Sengodagounder ( 2010(1) CTC 93 ) 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 20.8.2009, made in I.A.No.645 of 2009, in O.S.No.285 of 2006. The petitioners have not shown proper reasons for the delay in filing the interlocutory application. The suit, in O.S.No.285 of 2006, had been filed by the respondents, on 1.8.2006. The petitioners had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.645 of 2009, on 24.7.2009, after nearly three years from the date of the filing of the suit. 9. The petitioners have not been in a position to show, by way of necessary evidence, that their plea is bona fide in nature. The petitioners had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.645 of 2009, on 24.7.2009, after nearly three years from the date of the filing of the suit. 9. The petitioners have not been in a position to show, by way of necessary evidence, that their plea is bona fide in nature. When the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.285 of 2006, were clear, there is no good reason for the petitioners to seek permission to file an additional written statement, at a highly belated stage, especially, when the trial in the suit had commenced and the oral evidence of the parties to the suit had been closed. Even otherwise, if the additional written statement sought to be filed by the petitioners is only raising a legal plea, it could be raised even at the stage of the arguments in the suit. As such, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.