Jayaraman and Anandhan and 3 vs Munusamy

Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal

The Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order in I.A. No. 337 of 2009 in O.S. No. 39 of

2003 dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur. The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Uthiramerur, while passing orders in I.A. No. 337 of 2009 (filed by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3), has, among other

things, observed that ''the present application has been filed only with a view to protract the pending case and further, the averments made in the

application have already been made in the additional written statement filed by the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 as early as on 19.08.2008. Once

again very same averments have been mentioned and the present I.A. No. 337 of 2009 has been filed. Further, the evidence of Plaintiff and

Defendants are over and the case has been posted for hearing of the arguments. In this circumstance, the application has been filed belatedly etc.''

and consequently, dismissed the application without costs.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 submits that the trial Court has not appreciated of the fact that the legal pleas like

adverse possession, prescription, ouster and limitations which can be taken in the form of subsequent pleadings at any stage of the proceedings as

per Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code.

Yet another submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 is that the trial Court ought to have liberally allowed

the filing of additional written statement, since the Petitioners are only to project their stand point of view in the main case.

At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision in M. Thangavel Pillai V. The Commissioner, Corporation of

Trichirapalli, Corporation Building, Condonment, Trichy, 2001 (1) CTC 461 wherein it is held that ''granting permission to file such additional

written statement after issues were framed for trial is not illegality or irregularity order and the trial Court has been held that it does not call for

interference in revision.''

He also refers the decision of this Court in Muthuraman Vs. Muthukumaran, wherein it is held that ''additional written statement should be

allowed if they are relevant to prove facts placed before the Court and the order of rejection in filing the additional written statement has been set

aside.''

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner quotes the following decisions:

(a) In T.R. Govindasamy and others V. T.R. Natarajan and others, 2004 (4) CTC 759 wherein it is held that ''Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC gives wife

power to Courts to give permission to defendant at any time for presenting written statement but fixing time limit for presenting the same.''

(b) In John C. Christian and another V. R. Adhikesavan and 11 others, 2009 (5) CTC 29, it held that ''No new plea has been raised in additional

written statement and that earlier plea in the written statement also not disowned. Only to furnish better particulars and other related transactions

defendant can be permitted to file an additional written statement.''

(c) In Damayanthi Kailasam Vs. Mrs. D.F. Philips, Lt. Col. C.C. Philips, Mrs. Rajeswari Shinde and Mrs. Jayanthi, it is observed that

''inconsistent pleas can be raised by seeking amendment to written statement and the discretion exercised by the trial Court is held to be proper.''

Admittedly, in the present case, the evidence on the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff was over and also the evidence on the side of the 1st

Defendant was closed and numerous opportunities were provided to the Petitioners/Defendants 2 and 3 to let in evidence, but they were not

examined and the evidence was closed on their side and the suit was posed for hearing of arguments. Only, at the stage of hearing of the

arguments, the present application has been filed to receive the additional written statement.

Although a liberal view can be taken by a Court of Law in regard to the filing of subsequent pleadings by a party as per Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil

Procedure Code, this Court is of the considered view that such kind of liberal view cannot be taken in matters like where the evidence of witnesses

were closed and that too when the matter has been posted for hearing of the arguments.

In the present case, the Petitioners already filed their additional written statement on 19.08.2008. Initially, they filed their written statements on

09.02.2005. Filing of subsequent pleading in the form of additional written statement cannot be permitted in instalments and that too after closure

of evidence of respective parties. More so, when the main case has been posted for hearing of the arguments and now the stage is set for hearing

of the arguments and for deliverance of judgment by the trial Court. On the facts of the present case on hand, this Court is of the considered view

that a subsequent pleading viz., additional written statement cannot be permitted to be filed by the Petitioners as a matter of course/routine. In fact,

the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC are to be impleaded by a Court of Law with great care and circumspection.

Viewed in that perspective and taking note of the fact that the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 have been already provided with an opportunity of

filing the additional written statement as early as on 14.7.2008 and also bearing in mind another vital fact that the suit is set for hearing of

arguments, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the present I.A. No. 337 of 2009 filed by the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3 is only

an exercise in futility. In short, this Court finds no error/infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the I.A. No. 337 of 2009 praying

permission of the Court to file additional written statement. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 337 of 2009 in O.S. No. 39 of 2003 dated

14.09.2009 is affirmed by this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.