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 pleadings to supplement or clarify the facts on record.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the plaintiff, and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.37/2012 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner’s case is that the respondents, instead of performing their part of the contract, filed O.S.No.308/2011 before the Court of the Munsiff, Chengannur, to restrain the petitioner from entering into the plaint schedule property. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.210/2012 before the same Court against the respondents to restrain them from alienating the property to others. A ‘status quo’ order was passed in that suit. Although the petitioner had expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the respondents have wilfully refused to perform their part. Hence, the present suit.

2. The respondents have resisted the present suit by filing Ext.P2 written statement.

3. The court below had formulated six issues.

4. The parties went to trial. Witnesses were examined, and documents were marked on both sides. At the time of final hearing, the Court below formulated an additional issue as to whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “Code”). Thereafter, the Court below, by Ext.P3 judgment, dismissed the suit holding it to be hit by O.2 R.2 of the Code.

5. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner filed R.F.A.No.21/2019 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh consideration by Ext.P4 judgment.

6. Then, the respondents filed Ext.P6 application, seeking leave to accept Ext.P5 additional written statement on record. Even though the petitioner objected to the application, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, allowed Ext.P6 application and accepted Ext.P5 additional written statement on record. Ext.P8 is erroneous and improper. Hence, the original petition.

7. Heard; Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Joseph P. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. Sri.P.B.Krishnan referred to O.6 R.7, O.6 R.17 and O.8 R.9 of the Code and assailed Ext.P8 order. He contended that no pleading subsequent to the written statement, other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim, can be accepted on record. The course open to a party is to amend the pleadings as provided under O.6 R.7 of the Code, subject to the proviso to R.17 of O.6 of the Code. But the Court below has erroneously granted leave and accepted the additional written statement. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.A.Jayalekshmi v. H.Saradha and others [2009 KHC 4489] and Gurdial Singh and others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 445], the decision of this Court in Venugopal R.v. Meenakshi Gopinath [2009 KHC 1334] and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mohammadali and another v. Kakhuthejatul Kubra and others [ILR 2001 KAR 4580], to canvass the above position. He also placed emphasis on paragraphs 11, 36, 37, 40 and 42 of Ext.P4 inter-party judgment in R.F.A.No.21/2019 and argued that this Court had permitted the parties to let in additional evidence but not file subsequent pleadings. Hence, the court below ought to have rejected the additional written statement. He urged the impugned order to be set aside.

9. Sri.Joseph. P. Alex countered the above submission by contending that this Court, in paragraph 37 of the judgment in R.F.A.No.21/2019, has unambiguously held that it was not recording any finding on the question of the bar under O.2 Rule 2 of the Code and has permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence, which necessarily implies filing of subsequent pleadings. Based on the above observation, the respondent filed Exts.P5 and P6. Moreover, when filing the written statement, the fact regarding the abandonment of the earlier suit was not entirely within the respondents’ knowledge, though they ha