Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 801
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Mahadevan - Appellant
Versus
Pandiyan & Another - Respondent
C.R.P(MD) No. 188 of 2018 (PD) & C.M.P(MD) No. 825 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2018
For the Petitioner:A. Banumathy, Advocate.
Delay in filing a petition for an additional written statement, along with the lack of reasoning for the additional written statement, can lead to the dismissal of the petition under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Additional Written Statement - Relevance to Suit - The court dismissed the petition for receiving an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, considering the delay of seven years in filing the petition and lack of reasoning for the additional written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the third defendant in the suit, filed a petition to receive an additional written statement in a suit for specific performance. The suit had been pending for seven years, and the petitioner claimed that the original written statement lacked relevancy to the facts related to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of seven years in filing the petition for an additional written statement, along with the lack of reasoning for the additional written statement, led to the dismissal of the petition under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court also directed the Trial Judge to dispose of the suit within six months.
Issues: Delay in filing petition for additional written statement, lack of reasoning for the additional written statement, and direction to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the petition for an additional written statement, along with the lack of reasoning for the additional written statement, influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion to direct the Trial Judge to dispose of the suit within six months.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The Trial Judge was directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2017 made in I.A.No.292 of 2017 in O.S.No.157 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as follows: The respondents /plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.157 of 2011 seeking the relief of specific performance. The petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. The case was posted for cross examination of P.W.1. At the time of cross examination of P.W.1 only, the petitioner came to know about the fact that in the written statement lacks some relevancy of facts related to the suit. Therefore, he filed an additional written statement in the suit clearly stating the relevancy of facts and hence, he prays to receive the same.
4. The respondents/plaintiffs, before the lower Court, through their counter affidavit denied all the averments made in the affidavit. After completion of chief of P.W.1 on 20.10.2016, the case was unnecessarily adjourned for cross for four months. The suit is of the year 2011. After completion of plaintiff's side evidence, this petition for receiving additional written statement is not maintainable and hence, prayed for dismissal.
5. It is seen from the records that the suit is of the year 2011. The written statement was also filed on 21.09.2012. After lapse of seven years, the petitioner filed the petition to receive additional written statement. Even in the additional written statement, he has stated that while drafting original written statement certain facts have been left, but he has not stated whether the facts are relevant to this case or not. The petitioner has not given any reasoning for filing the additional written statement. More particularly, the suit is pending for more than seven years.
6. The trial court, after analysing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned in this revision.
7. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be granted to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit within the time stipulated by this Court. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2011, I am inclined to direct the Trial Judge to dispose of the suit.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
