The admissibility of additional written statements should be based on convincing reasons and should not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 05.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Lalgudi and allow this Civil Revision Petition with Costs.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 05.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Lalgudi.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court below.

3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Lalgudi, for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have filed a interlocutory petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.51 of 2019 under Order 8, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, to receive the additional written statement. The said petition was allowed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein/D-2 & D-3 by the Court below on 05.07.2021. Aggrieved over the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

5. This Civil Revision Petition filed on the ground that the Court below has failed to see that the petition to file an additional written statement is highly belated and after 11 years of filing the suit and 21 ½ years from the date of the sale deed. The court below ought to have considered that the respondents 1 & 2 have not sought for amendment of their plaint in O.S.No. 50 of 2019 by seeking to introduce a prayer for declaration that the sale deed, dated 18.06.1999, is invalid. In such circumstances, they cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement in the revision petitioner's suit as it would be mutually contradictory. They cannot admit the sale deed in one case and impeach it in another case.

6. The petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed by the R-1 & R-2 herein/D-2 & D-3 to receive additional written statement the same was allowed.

7. The suit in O.S.No51 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and al persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property described hereunder either by committing trespass by tampering the barbed wire fence on the north eastern side of the suit property or in any manner. The suit properties is in S.No.119/1A1, 1 acre 77 cents.

8. The written statement was filed by the defendant Nos.2 & 3 on 07.10.2009. The 3rd defendant has filed another suit in O.S.No.669 of 2009 for demarcation of her property in 'C' that is in S.No.119/1A2 & in S.No. 119/1A1, 77 cents on the basis of sale deed, dated 14.09.2005.

9. The 3rd defendant has also admitted the sale by Rangasamy to this Revision petitioner on 18.06.1999. In the sale deed, dated 14.09.2005, purchased by the 3rd respondent, south and west boundaries are this Revision petitioner's Mill. From the year 1999, the Revision petitioner is in possession.

10. The suit filed by the 3rd defendant is only for demarcation. Now the 3rd defendant has filed written statement and denied the rights of the revision petitioner after 11 years.

11. Originally, the Defendant Nos.3 & 4 have filed written statement on 07.10.2009. Now, this petitioner to receive additional written statement filed by the D-3 & D-4 on 13.10.2020. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 cannot raise all the issues after admitting the rights of revision petitioner in her sale deed and in suit filed by thm that too after 11 years.

12. Eventhough, the D-3 & D-4 have stated in the written statement that before executing the sale deed by the power agent one of the Principal died before execution of the sale deed, they have not objected the sale deed. Now they objected the sale deed which is new pleading.

13. The Judgment reported in 2005(4) LW 411, P.N.Deenadayalan & An