Application No.3874 of 2023

in C.S.No.428 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 09.08.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 22.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Application No.3874 of 2023

in C.S.No.428 of 2019

Meena Jawahar Palaniappan

...

Applicant /

Plaintiff

versus

1.Headway Projects

23, 7^th Cross Street,

West Shenoy Nagar,

Chennai - 600 030.

2.A.Vani Priya

...

Respondents /

Defendants 1 & 2

PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side

Rules read with Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908,

praying to receive the reply statement dated 28.07.2023 to the written

statement of defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No.428 of 2019.

For Applicant

: Mr.B.S.Jhothiraman

For Respondents

: M/s.P.C.Harikumar

1/8

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

Application No.3874 of 2023

in C.S.No.428 of 2019

O R D E R

This Application has been filed to receive the reply statement dated

28.07.2023 to the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in

C.S.No.428 of 2019.

2.

Heard the learned counsels for the applicant / plaintiff and

respondents / defendants 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on

record.

Submission of the applicant:-

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff submitted that

the allegations and assertions made by the defendants 1 and 2 in their

written statement are baseless and hence, the applicant / plaintiff should be

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

defendants 1 and 2 in C.S.No.428 of 2019.

Submission of the respondents:-

4.

The learned counsel for the respondents / defendants 1 and 2

submitted that there is no necessity to file any reply statement and in the

2/8

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

Application No.3874 of 2023

in C.S.No.428 of 2019

name of filing the reply statement, the plaintiff is trying to bring new

materials to her plaint. The reply statement is permitted in the following 3

situations:-

“(i) when it is required by law;

(ii) when a counter claim is raised or set off is pleaded by the

defendant; and

(iii) when the court directs or permits a replication being

filed.”

4.1.

The written statement is nothing but denial of facts set out in

the plaint along with the defense; new facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the

reply statement would amount to amending her plaint itself; no sufficient

cause is shown to file reply statement and hence, this application should be

dismissed.

Discussion:-

5.

The applicant / plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money

of Rs.3,90,00,000/- along with interest and to direct the mortgaged

properties to be sold in public auction for realising the suit amount. The

3/8

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

Application No.3874 of 2023

in C.S.No.428 of 2019

transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants had been detailed in the

plaint and it is alleged that the defendants had entered into a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) with the plaintiff by assuring to adhere to the

terms and conditions in the schedule of payment as mentioned in the MOU.

The plaintiff has alleged that a supplementary MOU dated 13.12.2014 has

been executed by the defendants by accepting their liability. As the

defendants did not make payments, the third MOU was also said to have

been executed on 25.03.2015. It is further alleged that the first defendant

had executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff and he also

executed a mortgage by depositing of title deeds in respect of the properties

situated in Chitrathur Village. So the failure on the part of the defendants is

said to have given to the cause of action to the plaintiff and hence, the suit

has been filed by her.

6.

The defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance and filed their

written statement by denying the allegations made in the plaint and set out

their defence by stating that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree as

prayed for. So