Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5276
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
Sekar & Another
Versus
A.N. Sengodagounde
C.R.P.(PD).No.2552 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 04-12-2009
For the Petitioners:S. Mukunth, Advocate. For the Respondent:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings should not cause prejudice to the other party and should be imperative for proper adjudication.
Headnote:
Additional Written Statement - Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of a cart track. The defendants filed a written statement denying the allegations and later sought to file an additional written statement, which was dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that allowing the additional written statement would cause prejudice to the plaintiff and concluded that the application was devoid of merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants should be granted leave to file an additional written statement after the trial had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in filing the additional written statement, the nature of the plea raised, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff. It also referred to relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the trial court's decision to reject the additional written statement, dismissing the revision and the connected miscellaneous petition.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff and his brothers jointly purchased large extent of properties. On 27.04.1960, by virtue of a registered partition deed they partitioned the entire properties owned by them jointly. At the time of enjoying entire properties, they formed number of cart tracks for better and convenient enjoyment of their entire properties. The suit property is one such cart track and the width of all the cart tracks detailed in the partition deed is 30 links. The respondent/plaintiff all along enjoying the cart track detailed in the plaint. The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 are the grand sons of one of the brother viz.,Muniappa Gounder, of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the daughter in law of the Muniappa Gounder. The petitioners/defendants are also entitled to use the cart tracks. There was misunderstanding between the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioners/defendants. It was alleged that the petitioners/defendants with ulterior motive in order to give inconvenience and cause injury to the respondent/plaintiff, attempted to put up stone revetment encroaching a part of the suit cart track. In such circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of 2000 of 2004 praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit cart track to take his men, cart cattle and lorry through the same as a right of ingress and egress to reach his houses and other properties and in particular from encroaching any part of the suit property and put up stone revetment in the same and for costs. The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement on 25.07.2001 denying all the allegations and stated that the respondent/plaintiff is trying to encroach the major portion of cart track and trying to construct stone revetment on the edge of the cart track as detailed in the partition deed dated 27.04.1960. Subsequently, the petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. to grant leave to file additional written statement on the ground that the suit cart track runs through survey Nos.284/II and 285/1J and its other sub-divisions and no cart track was running in the southern part of survey No.284/6. But in the description of property it is mentioned that the suit cart track is running in Southern part of S.No.284/6. As per recitals in the partition deed dated 27.04.1960, no cart track runs in S.No.284/6.Therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. The petitioners/defendants further contended that the above stated facts are accidentally omitted to state in the written statement filed earlier and also no such averment made in the body of the plaint as if cart track runs in S.No.284/6. After considering the facts and circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A., on the ground that it was filed very belatedly and also it would cause prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff as the petitioners/defendants has not raised the present defence in the earlier written statement and also after filing proof affidavit and the examination of PW1 the petitioners/defendants filed the said
I.A. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition.
3. Thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking to grant leave to file additional written statement. He further submitted that the trial Court is wrong in holding that the petitioners/defendants are introducing a new case by way of additional written statement and also failed to appreciate that the petitioners/defendants had elucidated the recitals in the partition deed dated 24. 1960 which does not amount to introduce a new case. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have look
