ORDER:- This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, refusing to allow an application filed by the revision petitioner, first defendant under Order 8, Rule 9 and Section 151, C. P. C. to receive the additional written statement.

2. The suit filed by the respondent was for declaration of his title to the suit property which comprises of wet lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants, of whom the 5th defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 to 4. In that written statement, it is categorically admitted in paragraph 3 that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and Muthuswami and they are in enjoyment of the same. But letter on, it is stated that about seven months prior to the filing of the written statement, the entire villagers of Thamamuthiyur village in Kurumbapatti Panchayat headed by a particular M.L.A. convened a meeting at the request of the villagers and decided to put up a pucca road from Idappadi Kanganapuram Main Road passing through several patta lands including that of the plaintiff, the defendants and certain others and it was decided that the entire villagers should contribute for the formation of the road, except those pattadars in whose lands the new road has to be formed, and all the pattadars including the plaintiff agreed to that, and the new road was laid five months prior to the filing of the written statement, and it is being used by the entire villagers and the Panchayat had agreed to maintain this road.

4. Issues were then framed and the trial was commenced. It appears from the order of the learned District Munsif that after the examination of two witnesses on behalf of the defendants, the application under Order 8, Rule 9, C. P C. was filed for leave to file an additional written statement.

5. By the additional written statement, it is sought to be contended that actually, the suit pathway was a customary pathway and it has been in existence for well over 100 years and it was used by the villagers as of right and without any interruption and at the beginning of 1972, the villagers of Thana Moorthipalayam applied to the Kurumbapatti village Panchayat for the laying of a pucca road and the Panchayat passed a resolution unanimously for laying the road and for maintaining the same and since some more lands of the pattadars were required for laying the pucca road sufficiently wide enough to admit hand carts, lorries and other vehicles, the local M.L.A. and the Panchayat President approached the plaintiff, the defendant and some other pattadars to give portions of their lands for a public purpose and they consented to do so and after obtaining their consent, the Panchayat laid the road and as such the defendants have 'acquired easement right by prescription by user of the suit cart track for well over 12 years and the plaintiff is estopped from disputing the defendants' right to use the suit pathway and further the suit is bad for non-joinder of the Karumbapatti Panchayat Board.

6. It may be noted that while in the original written statement, it is merely stated that the new road was laid only five months prior to the filing of the written statement and there was no whisper of the existence of any pathway, or cart track at that place, it is now sought to be made out by the additional written statement that actually there was a cart track over the plaintiff's lands and that of others which was being used by the villagers for over 12 years as an easement and that the cart track was widened after the plaintiff and the other pattadars had given their consent to give portions of their land to the Panchayat for laying the road.

7. In these circumstances, the learned District Munsif found that by the additional written statement, the first defendant was trying to set up an entirely new case, after the examination of the witn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document