Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 962 (MAD)

Sivakumar v. Josephine Vayalet Rani

2025-02-14

R.POORNIMA

body2025
ORDER : 1. The above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2020 in O.S.No.69 of 2011, dated 11.01.2021, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. 2. The revision Petitioners have filed these revision petitions one against the order passed by the trial Court in a petition to reopen the case to allow them to file Additional Written Statement and the other one against the order passed in a petition filed by them to allow them to file additional written statement. Both the Petitions are dismissed by the trial Court. 3. The learned counsel for the revision Petitioners stated that the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2011 has been filed before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in the year 2010 and the revision Petitioners/defendants have filed written statement during the month of July 2011. An amendment petition was filed by the respondents/Plaintiffs on 2.1.2013 and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 24.7.2014. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the respondents/plaintiffs amended the plaint by inserting the relief of mandatory injunction. In order to contest the same, the revision petitioners have filed petitions to reopen the case to file additional written statmeent and to permit them to file the additional written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in allowing the above Petitions, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs. He would further submit that they have not introduced any new facts and only to contest the amendment filed by the respondents/plaintiffs namely, mandatory injunction and if they are not allowed to file additional written statement, it would cause prejudice to their interest and the revision Petitioners, in support of their claim, has submitted the following decisions: (1) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on (2016) 4 CTC 750 in the case of Devendran vs. P.V. Palani, in which, it has been held as follows: "15. The Supreme Court while dealing with the question of permitting the defendant to file additional written statement made it clear in Olympic industries case that delay alone shall not be the ground on which thepermission to file additional written statement/additional counter statement could be refused. The Supreme Court while dealing with the question of permitting the defendant to file additional written statement made it clear in Olympic industries case that delay alone shall not be the ground on which thepermission to file additional written statement/additional counter statement could be refused. In Usha Balashaheb Swami’s case, the Honourable Supreme Court advocated liberal approach in case of amendment of the defence plea, namely, by way of additional Written Statement, which has also been referred to by the Supreme Court in Olympic Industries Case." (2) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on 2016 (2) CTC 167 in the case of P. Ramasami and others vs. Nagai Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, in which it has been held as follows: "In regard to the filing of Additional Written Statement is concerned, the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code provide an ample power to the Court of Alw to grant leave to file Additional Written Statement in regard to the defence/defences to be taken by a party.Also it annot be forgotten that even subsequent development/event by means of rejoinder can be pressed into service by a party concerned in the form of Additional Pleadings,out the only rider is subsequent pleadings set up by the party ought not to be inconsistent with the defence/defences taken earlier." (3) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on (2009) 5 SCC (Civil) 689 in the case of Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Aknerally and others, in which, it has been held as follows: "7....................We are of the view that even if the examination of P.W.1 or his cross examination was over, then also, it was open to the Court to accept the additional counter statement filed by the appellant by awarding some cost against the appellant. It is also well settled that while allowing additional coutner statement or refusing to accept the same, the Court should only see that if such additional counter statement is not accepted, the real controversy between the parties could not be decided. As noted herein earlier, by filing an additional counter statmennt in the present case, in our view would not cause injustice or prejudice to the respondents but that would help the Court to decide the real controversy between the parties. As noted herein earlier, by filing an additional counter statmennt in the present case, in our view would not cause injustice or prejudice to the respondents but that would help the Court to decide the real controversy between the parties. In our view the High Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application for permission to file additional counbter statement as no prejudice could be caused to the respondent which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost." 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the amendment petition was allowed as early as on 24.7.2014 and the revision petitioners were directed to file additional written statement and for that purpose, the Court below has granted time till 24.09.2014. When the Court below has given specific time to file additional written statement, the revision petitioners cannot file additional written statement beyond that time. Therefore the Court below in its adjudication has endorsed that no additional written statement filed and since the same was not filed by the revision petitioners, the said fact has been endosed by the Court below. He further stated that thereafter the plaintifffs side evidence was completed and the defendants were also provided with opportunity to adduce evidence on their side and that was also completed by the respondents’ side and closed on 6.2.2020 and when the case was posted for arguments on 11.2.2020, the revision petitioners came up with petitions to reopen the case to file additional written statement and to permit them to file additioal written statement. The reasons stated by the revision petitioners is that on 31.7.2019, they met with an accident. 5. A perusal of the dates and events would show that even after that, the revision petitioners have not filed the Petitions and waiting till the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs is over and they were cross examined and the defendants were also examined in chief and cross and when the matter was posted for arguments, the revision petitioners have filed the above petitions. 6. 6. Order VII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code states that ‘’No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.’’ A reading of the above rule would reveal that additional written statement should be filed within the time prescribed and not with a long delay. The learned counsel would further submit that though the revision petitioners/defendants were provided with ample opportunity, they have not availed the same and now they have come forward with petitions one to reopen the case to file additional written statement and another one to permit them to file additional Written Statement which will prejudice the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs, as the respondents have already cross examined the Petitioners/defendants by putting up all the questions and hence the learned counsel for the respodnents/plaintiffs seriously objected to allow these revisions and prayed for dismissal of the same. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on eithe side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. On a perusal of the entire records, it is true that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a petition for amendment in I.A.No.53 of 2014 on 2.1.2013 and the same was heard by the trial Court and after receiving the counter, allowed the said petition on 24.7.2014. Subsequently, the revision petitioners were provided with opportunity to file additional written statement and time was also granted upto 24.09.2014. But the revision petitioners failed to file any additional written statement and that was endorsed by the trial Court stating that no additional written statement filed and thereafter the trial has commenced and both the plaintiffs and respondents were examined in Chief and Cross-examination and after that, when the case was posted for arugments of the parties, the Petitioners have filed these petitions to reopen the case to file additional written statement and to permit the revision petitioners to file additional written statement. However, the revision petitioners have stated that they have not introduced any new plea and the averments in the original written statement has been pleaded and only in order to raise their objection regarding mandatory injuction, they want to file additional written statement. However this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioners had already been given sufficient opportunity to file additional written statement, but they failed to do so instead they waited until both side evidence completed and then, at this belated stage, in order to fill up the lacunae, the revision Petitioners have filed the above applications, which is improper and illegal. The trial Court, as a fact finding Court, on appreciation of facts and conduct of the parties, had rightly come to a conclusion and finally dismissed the applications. This Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the findings of the Court below warranting interference by this Court and as such, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.