Filing of additional written statement permitted.

1. This civil revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 17.11.2000 made in I.A.807 of 2000 in O.S 1089 of 1986 in and by which, the trial Court permitted the respondents herein to file its additional written statement in the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property either by demolition or otherwise.

2. In the plaint, it is claimed that the suit property is a Natam poramboke and that the petitioner is in possession of the said premises for more than 32 years. Originally a written statement was filed by the respondent on 6.11.1986 contending that the petitioner had put certain constructions over municipal drainage causing damages to the same and also obstructing free flow of sewage water. It is specifically contended that inspite of the directions of the respondent to the plaintiff to remove the unauthorised constructions put up in the respondent's property, the petitioner without complying with the said directions of the respondent had approached the Civil Court. It is also claimed that by virtue of the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner, the drainage could not be repaired immediately which would only result in spread of diseases in that locality which ultimately would affect the public health.

3. It is unfortunate that the suit which was filed in the year 1986 riped for hearing only in the month of October, 2000 when P.W.1 was examined. During the course of his examination, the petitioner admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he is in possession of the suit property for more than 32 years. P.W.1 has also denied the suggestion that the suit property belonged to the respondent as per revenue records and that he is only a trespasser. It was at that stage, the respondent came forward with the present application for filing an additional written statement. A perusal of the additional written statement shows that the respondent wanted to specify the suit schedule property with particular reference to the survey numbers and the purpose intended for the utilisation of the said property. In the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C., it is stated that by mistake the various details concerned in the additional written statement should not be referred to in the original written statement and since the absence of those particulars would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent, the respondent should be permitted to file the additional written statement. The Court below has allowed the said application by permitting the respondent to file an additional written statement.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if at all the petitioner wanted to bring forth the new facts, it could at best do only by seeking an amendment to the original statement and the respondent cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement and thereby permit him to put forth a new case than what was pleaded in the original written statement. The learned counsel would rely upon Milind Saran Kothiwal v. Vinai Kumar Gupta, AIR 1987 All.339, State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ikbal and others, AIR 1999 Raj. 169 and Pratap Kumar Rath and others v. Board of Secondary Education and others, AIR 1993 Ori.143. As far as the judgment reported inMilind Saran Kothiwal v. Vinai Kumar Gupta, AIR 1987 Allahabad 339, is concerned, that was a case where a minor on attaining majority wanted to file a fresh written statement superceding the original statement filed by her guardian and it was, in those circumstances, the learned Judge was of the view that at best the minor could seek for amendment of the original statement and the minor cannot be permitted to file a fresh statement superceding whatever contentions raised by the guardian in the original written statement. The very fact that the minor wanted to file a fresh written