ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.223 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani. The revision is field against the dismissal of I.A.No.580 of 2002 to receive reply statement.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit on 13.11.2000 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and for partition of half share in respect of the suit ‘B’ schedule property against her daughter-in-law. In the plaint it is averred that as per registered partition deed dated 3.2.1984, the suit ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the suit ‘B’ schedule property was allotted to the share of Rangasamy, the husband of the defendant and on his death on 21.2.2000, as per his last Will dated 6.1.2000 the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit ‘B’ schedule property.

3. The suit was resisted by filing written statement on 2.11.2001, in which the defendant has set up a Will dated 11.8.1998 in her favour executed by her husband and she filed a suit O.S.No.209 of 2000 against his neighbours in the District Munsif Court, Bhavani and the suit after contest was decreed finding that the Will dated 11.8.1998 in her favour is proved and acted upon. Therefore, according to the defendant, her mother-in-law, the plaintiff is not entitled to half share in ‘B’ schedule property as per the Will dated 6.1.2000 executed by her husband Rangasamy, son of the plaintiff.

4. Though the written statement was filed as early as on 2.11.2001, the plaintiff did not choose to file a reply statement. However, after commencement of trial and after examining herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 from 3.1.2002 to 18.3.2002 and when the suit was being adjourned for examination of further witness on behalf of the plaintiff, the petition I.A.No.580 of 2002 was filed only on 25.9.2002 to receive reply statement denying the validity of the Will dated 11.8.1998b in favour of the defendant by her husband, the deceased Rangasamy. Considering all these aspects, the District Munsif dismissed the petition I.A.No.580 of 2002. The order is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as per O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., the revision petitioner, who filed the suit O.S.No.223 of 2000, is entitled to file reply statement, in view of the fact the defendant filed written statement setting up a Will dated 11.8.1998 in her favour executed by her husband, the deceased Rangasamy, son of the plaintiff. In support of the said contention, the leaned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Indo International Limited v. Continental Carriers Private Limited, (2004)1 M.L.J. 362.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that inasmuch as a definite case was set up in the written statement filed as early as on 2.11.2001, the plaintiff did not choose, to file reply statement and only after commencement of examination, on the plaintiff as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, 3.1.2002 to 18.2.2002 and when the suit was being adjourned for examination of further witnesses on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the petition on 25.9.2002 to receive reply statement. The learned counsel further pointed out, in as much as it is for the defendant to prove the Will in her favour there is no necessity for the plaintiff to file reply statement disputing the Will in favour of the defendant by her husband, the deceased Rangasamy, son of the plaintiff.

8. No doubt, it is true that under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. it is for the defendant to file any additional written statement and in that view the plaintiff can also file reply statement, if any clarification is required. In the written statement, the defendant has clearly set out that her husband executed a Will on 11.8.1998 and relying on the said Will she executed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document