CRP(PD)No.2375 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 09.12.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

C.R.P.(PD).No.2375 of 2017

and

C.M.P.No.11223 of 2017

Bhakthavatchalam

... Petitioner

Vs.

Deiveegan

... Respondent

Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and

decretal order, dated 29.08.2016, passed in I.A.No.156 of 2016 in

O.S.No.18 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court,

Villupuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh

For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Seshachari

1/16

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

CRP(PD)No.2375 of 2017

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and

decretal order, dated 29.08.2016, passed in I.A.No.156 of 2016 in

O.S.No.18 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court,

Villupuram.

2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in

the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2005 before the Court below. The suit was filed by

the petitioner against the respondent for specific performance of the contract

of sale and to register a sale deed and also for a direction to the respondent

to refund the amounts received by him viz., Rs.94,000/- together with lawful

interest and for costs. Pending suit, the respondent has filed the application

in I.A.No.156 of 2016, seeking to receive the additional written statement

filed in the suit. Since the said application was allowed on payment of costs

of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner herein by the impugned order, the Civil

Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that filing of

2/16

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

CRP(PD)No.2375 of 2017

additional written statement, which is inconsistent, that too after

commencement of trial, cannot be permitted. In support of his contention, he

would rely on the following decisions reported in CDJ 2002 MHC 714

[Kolandasamy Vs. Rathinam, Rathinayal]; CDJ 2009 MHC 6012 [Sekar &

Another Vs. A.N.Sengodagounder]; CDJ 2009 SC 1492 [P.A.Jayalakshmi

Vs. H.Saradha & Others; CDJ 2010 MHC 2479 [P.S.Karunakaran &

Another Vs. M/s. Madras Race Club, Represented by Ms.Aruna, officer In-

Charge (Legal), Guindy, Chennai and an order of this Court made in

CRP(PD)No.3258 of 2018, dated 26.10.2018.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that suit agreement was executed as security and, in order to prove his case,

he has now come forward with an additional written statement; that on the

same day of suit agreement, an unregistered agreement was executed in the

presence of same witnesses, which is in line with the original written

statement, and, therefore, the Court below has rightly allowed the

application, which cannot be faulted with. He relied upon the following

decisions in 2007 (1) LW 429 [ Thiyagarajan Vs. Manivannan]; 2007 (5)

SCC 602 [Usha Galashaheb Swami and Others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami

3/16

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

CRP(PD)No.2375 of 2017

and Others; and 2009 (5) CTC 29 [John C.Christian Vs. R.Adhikesavan].

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondent and also gone through the order impugned.

6. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for specific

performance. The present revision is against the order of the Court below,

allowing the respondent/applicant in I.A.No.156 of 2016, filed under Order

8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to file an additional written

statement in the suit.

7. At this juncture, the issue in question is to be considered in the light

of Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before

the

Civil

Procedure Code (Amendment) Act,2002, (Act 22 of 2002), Order 8, Rule 9

CPC, under the nomenclature “subsequent pleadings”, read as under :

“9. Subsequent pleadings.- No pleading subsequent to

the written statement of a defendant other tha