Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
BATTU DEVANAND
Lakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
Yasodhamma – Respondent
ORDER :
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in I.A.No.32 of 2017 in O.S.No.138 of 2009.
2.The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2009 before the Court below seeking for partition and for separate allotment of their shares in the suit schedule properties and also for permanent injunction against the defendant nos.5 to 8 not to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties.
3. Resisting the suit, the third defendant filed a written statement. However, later the third defendant, finding that the averments mentioned in her main written statement are not sufficient, intended to file an additional written statement. Therefore, the third defendant moved an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.32 of 2017 under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, seeking to permit her to file an additional written statement, which is filed alongwith the I.A..
4. Resisting the above said I.A, the plaintiffs filed a counter refuting the averments made in the IA.
5. The trial Court having considered the submissions made by both
A trial court may allow filing of an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC when trial has not commenced, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to avoid prejudice in litigati....
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure effective adjudication of the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other si....
Legal representatives can participate in partition suit proceedings without raising new defenses, emphasizing proper adherence to procedure under the Civil Procedure Code.
Amendments to written statements are essential for effective adjudication and should be allowed liberally, especially when new evidence is introduced.
Additional Written Statements under Order VIII Rule 9 must be consistent, and Courts may reject belated applications that do not assist in clarity or adjudication.
The court disallowed amendments to pleadings that would change the nature of a partition suit or introduce claims not previously included, emphasizing the need to protect parties' rights.
Defendants cannot file an additional written statement to an amended plaint if their right to do so has been previously forfeited, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
The right to file an additional written statement is contingent upon amendments in the plaint and must not introduce new claims, as established by prior court orders.
An amendment to a joint written statement cannot be made by one defendant without the consent of all other defendants who signed it, to avoid prejudice to their rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
