O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.07.2018 made in I.A.No.590 of 2017 in O.S.No.114 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, thereby dismissing the application to receive the additional written statement.

2. The petitioner herein is the 5th defendant and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The first respondent herein filed the said suit for partition and for separate possession.

3. Pending the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an application seeking permission to receive additional written statement and the same was dismissed on 11.07.2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

Aggrieved by the same the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that when the said suit was filed by the first respondent herein for partition and separate possession, the petitioner herein was a minor and his mother / 4th defendant was appointed as guardian for the petitioner herein and she filed a written statement on behalf of the minor petitioner herein against his interest. After attainment of majority, he came to understand that the written statement filed on behalf of him by his mother is untrue and suppressed the existing facts and circumstances of the said suit. On 04.10.2009 the petitioner's father was expired and the petitioner herein was under the care and custody of his grandmother and his maternal uncle. If at all the suit is allowed to be proceeded on the strength of the written statement filed by the fourth defendant on behalf of the petitioner herein, the petitioner will be put to serious damage. The earlier written statement filed by the fourth defendant was only after colluding with defendants 3 and 6 and against the interest of the petitioner herein.

5. He further submitted that there is no legal embargo to take inconsistent pleas by way of additional written statement and it should be liberally entertained by the Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments :

“1. the decision of this Court in AIR 1978 MAD 230 [Meenambal and Others -vs-

Chockalinga Chettiar and others];

2. the decision of this Court in C.R.P.(PD)

No.2881 of 2009 dated 16.12.2009 [P.N.Amirthavalli and others -vs-

S.V.Saravanan];

3. the decision of this Court in C.R.P.(PD)

No.996 of 2005 dated 15.09.2006 [Thiyagarajan -vs- Manivannan]; and

4. the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.685 of 1968 dated 18.09.1975 [Ratnam Chettiar and Ors. -vs-

S.M.Kuppuswami Chettiar and Ors].”

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the averments made in the additional written statement are all new pleas and contrary to the pleadings raised in his earlier written statement filed by his mother. The fourth defendant was already examined as D.W.1 and thereafter the petitioner herein filed the application seeking permission to receive additional written statement in order to fill up the lacuna, colluded among themselves and raised new pleas by way of filing the additional written statement. It is a complete violation of the provisions contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code.

7. He further submitted that the fourth defendant is none other his mother, who is the guardian and she protects the petitioner's interest and contested the suit till he attains majority. Now the petitioner herein had over turned and stating that his own mother is acting against his interest. The mother of the petitioner herein provided education and shelter all along to him and now he has come with the plea that he is residing with his paternal uncle and grandmother. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application seeking leave to file additional written statement.

8. He further submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure giving a right to a minor - 5th defendant who is the petitioner herein and who attained majority during t