R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.67/2007

is before this court aggrieved of the order dated

21.01.2022 passed by the trial court on I.A.No.XI.

2. By the impugned order, the trial court granted

permission to the respondents/defendants to file written

statement. It is not disputed that the said suit filed at the

hands of the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a decree that the

lease period granted in favour of the plaintiff is renewed

by operation of law automatically for a period of 30 years

and for grant of prohibitory injunction against the

defendants restraining them permanently from interfering

with

the

peaceful

possession

and

enjoyment

and

extraction of granite quarrying work and its transportation

was dismissed by the trial court on 26.02.2011. However,

it is the contention of the petitioner that though

opportunity was given to the respondents/defendants,

they did not file written statement. However, on

- 4 -

05.09.2009, the Power of Attorney Holder of the

defendants/respondents filed a compromise petition under

Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC signed by

the petitioner/plaintiff and Power of Attorney Holder of the

defendants/respondents. For consideration of the same,

the matter was posted on 19.09.2009. At that point of

time, I.As.No.VIII and IX were filed by impleading

applicants seeking to implead themselves. However, it is

contended that while disposing of I.As.No.VIII and IX, the

said suit was also dismissed as not maintainable.

Aggrieved

by

the

said

order

of

dismissal,

the

petitioner/plaintiff

preferred

an

Regular

Appeal

in

R.A.No.51/2011.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

during the course of the appeal, the respondents herein

filed a memo dated 21.08.2011 admitting the averments

made in the memorandum of appeal in its entirety and

stated that they do not have any objection for the court to

allow

the

appeal.

Consequently,

by

order

dated

- 5 -

24.09.2021, the first appellate court allowed the appeal

and while setting aside the order of dismissal of the trial

court, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh

disposal in accordance with law.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

when the respondents admitted the averments made in

the memorandum of appeal including the fact that the

compromise petition was filed at the hands of the plaintiff

and the defendants, the respondents were required to

submit before the trial court after the remand that the said

matter could be disposed of in terms of the compromise

petition. On the other hand, an application was filed in

I.A.No.XI seeking leave of the court to file written

statement. Learned counsel would therefore submit that

the trial court erred in allowing the application and

permitting the respondents/defendants to file written

statement,

when

admittedly

the

respondents

had

submitted before the first appellate court that the parties

had filed a compromise petition even before the suit was

- 6 -

dismissed. Moreover, it is submitted that no explanation

is offered for the delay in filing the written statement and

in terms of the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1

and 2 of CPC, the trial court should not have permitted the

respondents to file the written statement.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that even if the respondent had admitted the

averments made in the memorandum of appeal in

R.A.No.51/2011, the respondents cannot be forced to

accept the compromise petition which was filed in the year

2009. Moreover, the Regular Appeal filed at the hands of

the petitioner was allowed on 24.09.2021 and the parties

were directed to appear before the trial court on

18.10.2021 without awaiting for further notice/summons

from the trail court. There was a specific direction by the

first appellate court that since the suit is of the year 2007,

the trial court shall dispose of the suit within a outer limit

of six months. After the suit was taken up on 18.10.20