JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Prayer in C.R.P.No.2879 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 12.04.2016 made in I.A.No.569 of 2015 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

C.R.P.No.2880 of 2016:- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.02.2016 made in I.A.No.570 of 2015 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

1. The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos.2879 & 2880 of 2016 are directed as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 12.04.2016 & 11.02.2016 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari in I.A.Nos.569 & 570 of 2015 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 respectively, thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner to receive the reply statement and to amend the plaint.

2. In both Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect of his half share in the suit schedule property. The respondent filed written statement along with counter claim for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. After the period of three years, the petitioner filed petition to receive the reply statement to the counter claim made by the respondent herein and also filed petition for amendment to include the prayer for declaration declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent as null and void. Both petitions were dismissed by the trial and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sale deed dated 11.04.2002, under which the respondent claiming recovery of possession, was obtained by playing fraud from the petitioner herein as such it is just and necessary to file the reply statement for the counter claim. The question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding the petition to file a reply statement and also to include the prayer of declaration. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following reported judgments:

(i) 2018 (1)TNCJ 441(SC) - Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and ors

(ii) (2015) 3 MLJ 668 - Chitra Vs. Kannan

(iii) (2004) 6 SCC 415 - Pankaja and anr Vs. Yellappa (dead) by LRs and ors

(iv) (2005) 4 CTC 664 - Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vs. Udumalpet Samayapuram Ayira Vaisya Sangam rep. by its President.

(v) (2019) 15 SCC 628 - Varun Phawa Vs. Renu Chaudhary

(vi) (2009) 15 SCC 528 - Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainay Bhai Mulla Akberally and ors.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner initially filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of half share of the suit schedule property. He filed suit on 15.02.2012. Immediately, on 25.06.2012, the respondent filed written statement with the counter claim on the strength of the sale deed dated 11.04.2002 executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. In fact, while examining the petitioner as P.W.1, he categorically admitted during his cross-examination that the respondent filed written statement with counter claim. Therefore, the petitioner had full knowledge about the counter claim filed by the respondent. Even then, he did not choose to file any reply statement for the counter claim made by the respondent herein. After commencement of trial that too after part of cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioner came forward with the present petition with ulterior motive to fill up the lacuna.

4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner filed the petition for amendment at the belated state. Therefore, the amendment sought to include the prayer of