Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2567
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
M. Chockalingam
Versus
Leo Felix Louis & Another
C.R.P.(MD). Nos. 1563 & 1564 of 2014 & M.P.(MD). No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 18-08-2014
For the Petitioner:K.N. Govardhanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Vakeeswaran, Advocate.
Subsequent pleadings can be allowed with the leave of the court, provided they do not prejudice the other party and do not introduce inconsistent or mutually destructive pleas. The court has the discretion to grant leave on terms it deems fit.
Headnote:
Additional Written Statement - Civil Procedure - O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. - [T.R. Govindasamy and Others v. T.R. Natarajan and Others (2004 (3) MLJ 603), P.N. Amirthavalli and others v. S.V. Saravanan (2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 653), Subramanian and Others v. Jayaraman (1999 (III) CTC 52), R.S. Nagarajan v. R.S. Gopalan and Others (2007 (1) CTC 586)] - The court discussed the provisions of O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. and the wide discretion it provides to the courts to grant permission to defendants to file additional written statements at any time, as long as it does not prejudice the other party. The court also emphasized the importance of justice-oriented approach and the absence of prejudice in granting leave to file subsequent pleadings liberally. The judgment highlighted that the intention of the legislature is to allow subsequent pleadings with the leave of the court, and the court has the discretion to grant leave on terms it deems fit.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner sought permission to file additional written statements in two suits for decree of specific performance of agreement of sale, after the evidence on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff was closed. The petitioner claimed that important facts were omitted in the original written statement and sought to introduce new cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applications for additional written statements were belated and inconsistent with the original written statements. It concluded that the petitioner was trying to withdraw admissions made in the original written statement and introduced a new case at a belated stage, which cannot be entertained.
Issues: Belated applications for additional written statements, inconsistency with original written statements, withdrawal of admissions, and introduction of new cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that subsequent pleadings can be allowed with the leave of the court, but the applications must not prejudice the other party and should not introduce inconsistent or mutually destructive pleas. The court emphasized the importance of justice-oriented approach and the discretion of the court to grant leave on terms it deems fit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petitions and upheld the orders of the learned Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 10.04.2014, refusing permission to file additional written statements.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 10.04.2014, made in I.A. Nos. 827 and 828 of 2013 in O.S. Nos. 106 and 107 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Pudukkottai.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant, whereas the respondents in both the civil revision petitions are the plaintiff in the suits in O.S. Nos. 106 and 107 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, respectively.
3. The respondents filed both the suits for decree of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 04.05.2006. After framing issues, the suit was posted for trial. The evidence on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff was closed on 17.01.2013. The suits were posted for the evidence on behalf of the petitioner on 29.01.2013. After taking adjournments, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 701 of 2013, for obtaining expert opinion in respect of Ex.P3, undisputed document marked in the suit. The said application was dismissed on 20.09.2013. After dismissal of the said application, the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions has come out with present applications in I.A. Nos. 827 and 828 of 2013, for permission to file additional written statements in both the suits. According to the petitioner, in the written statement already filed by him, certain important facts were not mentioned by his earlier counsel and therefore, his counsel did not conduct the case properly. Therefore, after engaging present counsel, the additional written statement setting out the correct facts were prepared. Unless permission is granted to file additional written statement, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. The facts mentioned in the additional written statement were omitted to mention in the original written statement by inadvertence. The respondents in both the civil revision petitions filed counter affidavit opposing the said applications. According to the respondents, the applications are belated consisting of contradictory statement to that of the original written statement. In the additional written statement, new cause of action has been introduced. This cannot be entertained at this belated stage. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed both the applications holding that the same has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the above civil revision petitions.
4. Heard Mr. K.N. Govardhanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. C. Vakeeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents reiterated the averments stated in the affidavit and in the counter affidavit.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the averments in the affidavit, argued that the learned Judge did not properly appreciate the facts and law and erred in dismissing the applications. In support of his submission, he relied on the following Judgments:
(i) T.R. Govindasamy and Others v. T.R. Natarajan and Others [2004 (3) MLJ 603], wherein in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 it has been held as follows:-
"15. O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. gives wide power to Courts to give permission to defendant at any time, but fixing the maximum days for presenting the same. Except this restriction, I do not find any other restriction in granting leave for the defendants, to file additional written statement.
16. The trial Court, without considering the effect of the original written statement and the additional written statement, as well as the scope of O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., dismissed the application, only on technical grounds, probably that the petition is highly belated. True, the defendants have filed this application at the belated stage, when P.W.1 is in the box. This should not be the sole reason to deprive the right of the defendants, to take the defence available, w
