ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed seeking orders to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, Madurai District.

2. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.363 of 2004 before the learned District Munsif, Melur, claiming declaration that the respondent Nos.1 to 11 and respondent Nos. 13 and 14 and the petitioners are entitled to perform Mandagapadi in the suit property and consequentially restraining the petitioners and respondent Nos. 13 and 14 herein from interfering with the rights of respondent Nos.1 to 11 to perform the Mandagapadi during the Chithirai festival in the suit property.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 are the plaintiffs. The petitioners and the respondent Nos.12 to 14 are the defendants.

4. Pending suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.8 of 2025 before the learned District Munsif, Melur, to receive an additional written statement on their side. The said petition was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Melur on 24.03.2025. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed this present petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners denied the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 11, stating that the suit property is their ancestral property as per the title deed. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 11 cannot claim the relief as a matter of right. However, respondent Nos.1 to 11 attempted to utilize the suit property for commercial purpose. Since the petitioners' father, viz., S.Kasilingam, who was the defendant in the suit, subsequently died, thereafter, the petitioners were impleaded as parties and even prior to the suit, the petitioners' father cancelled the permissive right of respondent Nos.1 to 11 to participate in the Mandagapadi given by the petitioners' grandfather and has sent an objection to the Kallagar Devasthanam and the same was communicated to the second respondent herein:

(i) The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 under section 151 of C.P.C. before the trial Court to receive additional written statement of the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. after filing of amended plaint. However, the said application was rejected on the ground of delay and the delay was not properly explained in the affidavit. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

(ii) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue arose in the present petition is no longer res integra. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4148-4149 of 2009 in the case of Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhail Mulla. The said decision was followed by this Court reported in 2024 (4) L.W. 924 in the case of Lakshamma and another Vs. Yasodhamma and another. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 11 would submit that, admittedly, the suit has been pending since the year 2004. After a lapse of 21 years, the present application has been filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, and the same does not warrant interference.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this Court had already issued a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit. However, the said suit has not been disposed of till date.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

9. Admittedly, the suit is pending from the year 2004. The present issue before this Court pertains to the filing of the additional written statement, which was rejected by the trial Court. The above said issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 4148-4149 of 2009 in the case of Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhail Mulla and the relevant portion in the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“7.