Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3209 (MAD)

M. S. Narayana Pillai v. Shanmuga Pillai

2014-09-10

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 31.07.2014 passed in IA.No.448/2014 in OS.No.358/2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2. The petitioner is the second defendant, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and fourth respondent, who is the first defendant in the suit O.S.No.358 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit against the petitioner and fourth respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and 4th respondent and their men from causing any obstruction over 'B' schedule property. The petitioner and the fourth respondent contested the matter. After framing issues, the trial was commenced and the parties let in evidence and completed oral evidence. The suit was posted for arguments. 4. The petitioner filed an application to reopen the case and recall the witness. The said application was allowed. After letting in evidence, again, the suit was posted for arguments. 5. At that stage, the petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.212 of 2014 for reopening and for marking the documents. The said application was allowed. The documents produced by the petitioner were marked as Exs.B.9 to B.11 and posted for cross-examination of the petitioner and after cross-examination of the petitioner, the suit was posted for further evidence of the petitioner. From 29.04.2014 to 01.07.2014, the suit was adjourned as petitioner did not appear for being cross examined. After taking adjournments, the petitioner appeared in the Court and he was cross-examined. After completion of the evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.448 of 2014 for amendment of the written statement. According to the petitioner, Exs.B.7 and 8 were marked and it is necessary to amend the written statement in respect of those documents. The first respondent opposed the said application on the ground that it is belated one and the petitioner is filing application after application and with a view to drag on the proceedings. 6. The learned Judge, considering the materials on record and the judgments relied on and the arguments of the parties, dismissed the said application. Against the order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. The learned Judge, considering the materials on record and the judgments relied on and the arguments of the parties, dismissed the said application. Against the order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have carefully perused the entire materials on record. 8. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner, after the suit was posted for arguments, filed two applications in different occasions, first application for reopening and recalling and second application for reopening and marking the documents. Both the applications were allowed. After marking of the documents, the petitioner dragged on the proceedings as he did not appear for being cross-examined. Only after being warned by the Court, the petitioner appeared for cross-examination. It is seen that when the suit was posted for arguments for third time, after being reopened on two occasions, the petitioner has come out with the present application for amendment of written statement. 9. It is well-settled that even after commencement of the trial, the Courts can allow the application for amendment of written statement, provided satisfactory reasons given by the defendant and delay in filing the application satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the petitioner has not given any reason for not including the present defence in the original written statement itself. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, the documents are to be filed based on the pleadings. The attitude of the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner is not entitled to discretion to be exercised in his favour. The learned Judge has considered all the materials on record and law on this aspect in the proper perspective. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge warranting interference by this Court. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.