A.No.4551 of 2022 in C.S.No.1230 of 1995

A.No.4551 of 2022

in

C.S.No.1230 of 1995

Reserved on

10.11.2022

Pronounced on

21.11.2022

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

This application is filed seeking permission by the plaintiff to file

reply statement to the written statement filed by the third defendant.

2.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit in

C.S.No.1230 of 1995 is filed seeking the relief of specific performance of

agreements dated 18.09.1993 and 29.12.1993 executed between the

plaintiff and the first defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the first

defendant died and her husband, the fourth defendant was brought on

record. The second defendant is the brother of the first defendant. Upon

his demise, the third defendant was brought on record.

Page No.1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4551 of 2022 in C.S.No.1230 of 1995

3.The third defendant filed a suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995 for

dividing the properties of Elie John. Elie John executed a Will in favour

of the first defendant in respect of the suit property. Citing the pendency

of C.S.No.423 of 1995, the first defendant did not perform her

obligations. During the pendency of this suit, preliminary decree came to

be passed in C.S.No.423 of 1995. In view of the subsequent events, it is

necessary to file a reply statement to the written statement filed by the

third defendant.

4.The learned counsel for the third respondent opposes this

application on the ground that he was not impleaded in this case on the

death of the second defendant. Even when the suit was filed, he was

made as a party. The third defendant filed a written statement in 1995

itself. In the garb of filing the reply statement, plaintiff cannot introduce

new pleas and raise inconsistent pleas. The averments in the reply

statement that the third defendant's father was adjudged as an insolvent in

1965 is totally a new contention and has no bearing over the suit. In

Page No.2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4551 of 2022 in C.S.No.1230 of 1995

support of his submissions, he produced the following judgments:

1.Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs. Surjeeth Kaur

reported in

MANU/AP/0074/2007. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

12. Hence, it is always open to the plaintiff to

bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent events

by way of rejoinder. However, such subsequent

pleading, if contains allegation of fact inconsistent with

the pleading in the plaint, cannot be allowed since the

same is barred under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. While

interpreting the scope of Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC, it

was held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that

though inconsistent pleas can be raised by the

defendants in written statement, the same is not

permissible in case of plaint. It needs no reiteration

that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise

inconsistent pleas or to alter the cause of action stated

in the plaint either by way of amendment under Order

Page No.3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.4551 of 2022 in C.S.No.1230 of 1995

VI Rule 17of CPC or by way of a subsequent pleading

rejoinder under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC.

2.State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs.Mohammed Ikbal and Ors. reported

in MANU/RH/0223/1999. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

9. The principles deducible from the above

discussions may be summarised thus -

a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new

pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the

basis of his plaint.

b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to

explain the additional facts which have been

incorporated in the written statement.

c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward

with an entirely new case in his rejoinder.

d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise

inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of

action.

Page No.4 of