Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, J
Molleti Veera Kumara Swami – Appellant
Versus
Maddala Venkateswara Pentayyanaidu – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.53 of 2017 on the file of the X Additional District Judge at Anakapalli, filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of Rs.64,54,933/- together with interest @ 24% per annum, based on two promissory notes, dated 08.12.2014.
3. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement on 14.06.2018, raising various pleas and denying the contents of the plaint. While the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 804 of 2024, seeking permission to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). The respondent filed objections/counter affidavit, opposing the prayer. The learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, rejected I.A. No. 804 of 2024 by order dated 12.12.2024.
4. Challenging the order dated 12.12.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The additional written statement was necessary to be filed. The pet
Subsequent pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot introduce new causes of action and must relate to existing issues, with the court retaining discretion to allow or deny such applications based on....
Judicial discretion permits amendments to pleadings if justified, aiming for effective dispute resolution while maintaining procedural integrity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to permit subsequent pleadings under O.8 R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the purpose of such ple....
Under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, leave for additional written statement denied if sought to retract clear admissions in original, as it prejudices plaintiff by substituting new case; counsel inadvertence....
The right to file an additional written statement is contingent upon amendments in the plaint and must not introduce new claims, as established by prior court orders.
Defendants cannot file an additional written statement to an amended plaint if their right to do so has been previously forfeited, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
A trial court may allow filing of an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC when trial has not commenced, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to avoid prejudice in litigati....
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
