Joseph vs Punidha Aarokia Annai Peraalayam

K. Venkataraman, J.—The Defendant before the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam aggrieved over the order in dismissing his

application in I.A. No. 175 of 2011 in O.S. No. 549 of 2006 for filing additional written statement is before this Court.

2 The Respondent herein has filed the said suit against the Petitioner herein for his eviction. In the said suit, the Petitioner has filed written statement

admitting that he is the tenant under the Respondent herein. While so, he seeks to file an additional written statement giving a go-by to the earlier

written statement and now, he seeks to raise that the Respondent herein is not a owner of the premises and that the Petitioner is not a tenant under

him. The Court below came to the conclusion that the same cannot be permitted and dismissed the application.

3 I am also in total agreement with the findings of the learned trial Judge. In Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and

Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that ""a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written

statement can be allowed as long as the amended pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to Plaintiff or

displacing him completely.

4 In yet another decision in (2010)7 MLJ 432 (S.Sathish and Anr. v. Dr. Sumathi and others) this Court has held that ""in the case of receipt of

additional written statement, when the admission made earlier is not wiped out and is going to be kept intact, No. prejudice will be caused to the

Plaintiff even though a inconsistent plea is taken in the additional written statement. In such a case, rejection of the application to receive additional

written statement is not justified"".

5 In (2007) 4 MLJ 1098 (S.Suresh v. Sivabalakannan and others) it has been held that ""leave to file additional written statement is to be granted

liberally except when the Defendant raises mutually destructive pleas or tries to introduce a new case altogether by way of filing an additional

written statement.

6 Thus, the above citations would disclose that the Defendant is at liberty to take altogether a different plea, but it shall not cause any prejudice or

injustice to the Plaintiff.

7 It has also been held that the admission made earlier shall not be wiped out by filing an additional written statement. In the case on hand, as

rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, the Petitioner who has admitted in the written statement that the Respondent herein is the owner of the

property and he is a tenant under him, now trying to take a different plea that the Respondent is not a owner of the property and he is not a tenant

under him. That too, the said plea was taken after the examination of P.W.1. Definitely, it will cause great prejudice to the Respondent herein.

8 In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner which does not

require any interference by this Court.

9 In fine, the Civil revision petition is dismissed. However, No. orders as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also

dismissed.