Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 832 (MAD)

M. Krishnan v. R. M. Natrajan

2013-02-08

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.812 of 2008 in O.S.No.19 of 2008 whereby the Court below allowed the respondents herein, who are the defendants in the suit, to file an additional written statement. 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of 2008 are the revision petitioners and the defendants are the respondents herein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents/defendants have filed the application seeking permission of the Court to receive the additional written statement at a belated stage, only to drag on the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the first respondent/first defendant himself filed an earlier suit for partition in O.S.No.189 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed and there are no new facts warranting filing of the additional written statement. 5. Pen contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the first defendant was bed ridden due to chronic diabetes, he was not able to file the additional written statement in time and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the additional written statement is filed by the defendants in the suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Though the Court below has not stated any reason in its order for allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants, in my considered view, as it is only an additional pleading i.e. in the form of an additional written statement sought to be filed by the respondents and in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, necessary pleadings have to be placed before the Court and then only it will be in a position to arrive at a decision correctly based on all the facts and law. 8. Therefore, in my considered view no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if an additional written statement is filed by the respondents. Therefore, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The impugned order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Court below is confirmed. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested that a direction may be issued for speedy disposal of the suit. 10. Therefore, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The impugned order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Court below is confirmed. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested that a direction may be issued for speedy disposal of the suit. 10. It is seen that the suit is of the year 2008 seeking for partition and the parties to the proceedings are related to each other. Considering all those facts, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2008 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above said direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.