The court upheld the trial Court's decision to deny the filing of additional written statements due to delay and lack of new facts, emphasizing the importance of timely submissions in legal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2020 in O.S.No.69 of 2011, dated 11.01.2021, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

2. The revision Petitioners have filed these revision petitions one against the order passed by the trial Court in a petition to reopen the case to allow them to file Additional Written Statement and the other one against the order passed in a petition filed by them to allow them to file additional written statement. Both the Petitions are dismissed by the trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the revision Petitioners stated that the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2011 has been filed before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in the year 2010 and the revision Petitioners/defendants have filed written statement during the month of July 2011. An amendment petition was filed by the respondents/Plaintiffs on 2.1.2013 and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 24.7.2014. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the respondents/plaintiffs amended the plaint by inserting the relief of mandatory injunction. In order to contest the same, the revision petitioners have filed petitions to reopen the case to file additional written statmeent and to permit them to file the additional written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in allowing the above Petitions, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs. He would further submit that they have not introduced any new facts and only to contest the amendment filed by the respondents/plaintiffs namely, mandatory injunction and if they are not allowed to file additional written statement, it would cause prejudice to their interest and the revision Petitioners, in support of their claim, has submitted the following decisions:

(1) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on (2016) 4 CTC 750 in the case of Devendran vs. P.V. Palani, in which, it has been held as follows:

"15. The Supreme Court while dealing with the question of permitting the defendant to file additional written statement made it clear in Olympic industries case that delay alone shall not be the ground on which thepermission to file additional written statement/additional counter statement could be refused. In Usha Balashaheb Swami’s case, the Honourable Supreme Court advocated liberal approach in case of amendment of the defence plea, namely, by way of additional Written Statement, which has also been referred to by the Supreme Court in Olympic Industries Case."

(2) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on 2016 (2) CTC 167 in the case of P. Ramasami and others vs. Nagai Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, in which it has been held as follows:

"In regard to the filing of Additional Written Statement is concerned, the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code provide an ample power to the Court of Alw to grant leave to file Additional Written Statement in regard to the defence/defences to be taken by a party.Also it annot be forgotten that even subsequent development/event by means of rejoinder can be pressed into service by a party concerned in the form of Additional Pleadings,out the only rider is subsequent pleadings set up by the party ought not to be inconsistent with the defence/defences taken earlier."

(3) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on (2009) 5 SCC (Civil) 689 in the case of Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Aknerally and others, in which, it has been held as follows:

"7....................We are of the view that even if the examination of P.W.1 or his cross examination was over, then also, it was open to the Court to accept the additional counter statement filed by the appellant by awarding some cost against the appellant. It is also well settled that while allowing additional coutner statement