Timely pleadings are crucial to ensure a well-defined case before trial, and belated filings can cause prejudice and disrupt the trial process.

This Revision arises out of the Order of Second Additional District Munsif (in charge of I Additional District Munsif), Thirukovilur in I.A.No. 533 of 2000 in O.S.No.998 of 1991 dated 9.10.2000 allowing the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. on payment of costs of Rs.500/- thereby ordering receipt of additional written statement. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No. 998 of 1991:- Plaintiffs are daughters and son of D1 – Sadaiyandi. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit to cancel the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 executed by D1 in favour of D2. According to the Plaintiffs, the recitals in the said Sale Deed relating to the consideration and antecedent debts are not true. The promissory note and the other debts mentioned there on are not existing debts and the recitals have been incorporated to show as if the Sale Deed has been executed for consideration. Alleging that the Sale Deed is not binding on them and seeking to cancel the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming their ¾ share in the suit properties.

3. The Second Defendant filed the written statement contending that D1 had purchased the property in the name of his wife Mangai Ammal. D1 sold the said property to D2 under the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 for discharging the antecedent debts. Though the Sale Deed was obtained in the name of Mangai Ammal, the patta continues to be in the name of D1 and D1 was in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying kists etc. The first Defendant had executed Mortgage Deed dated 28.1.1986 to one Subramaniam for meeting the expenses of maintaining the minors-Plaintiffs and for discharging other antecedent debts. D1 had sold the property to the second Defendant for valid and binding consideration of Rs.13,000/- by the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986. The Plaintiffs continue to be under the care and custody of the first Defendant. When D1 is alive, the maternal uncle cannot be the lawful guardian for the Plaintiffs. The Sale Deed executed by D1 for meeting the family expenses and for discharging the antecedent debts, is binding upon the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs cannot seek for partition without setting aside the Sale Deed.

4. The trial commenced. Onbehalf of the Plaintiffs, five witnesses had been examined and cross examined. At that stage, D2 has filed I.A.No. 533 of 2000 for filing the additional written statement. According to the second Defendant, only recently, he was able to trace out an Agreement of Sale between the first Defendant and Annapoorani Ammal wherein the vendor Annapoorani Ammal had received consideration of Rs.5000/- from D1 and agreed to receive the balance consideration of Rs.40/- within four months i.e. Between 11.6.1978 and 11-12-1978 and agreed to get the Sale Deed. Thereafter, on 16.6.1978, D1 paid Rs.40/- to Annapoorani Ammal and she has agreed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of D1. According to the second Defendant, the same had been omitted to be pleaded earlier in the written statement. Hence, D2 has filed this application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. praying to receive the additional written statement.

5. Resisting the application, the Plaintiffs have filed elaborate counter statement contending that the pleadings earlier put forth in the written statement and the pleadings in the additional written statement are contradictory. It is further alleged that there was pre-suit notice on 7.8.1990 wherein D2 and his brother had sent reply and in the reply also, the second Defendant had not stated anything about the Agreement of Sale (dated 11.6.1976) between Annapoorani Ammal and D1.

6. Denying any such Agreement of Sale between Annapoorani Ammal and D1, the Plaintiffs have filed the counter statement alleging that the application had been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Since on behalf of the Plaintiffs five witnesses had been examined and cross examined, the application filed at that stage to receive the additional written statement