C.R.P.(MD) No.2477 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 12.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN

THILAKAVADI

C.R.P.(MD) No.2477 of 2022

and

C.M.P(MD) No.12145 of 2022

Sivasanghu

... Petitioner

Vs.

Paramasivam

... Respondent

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to

set aside the fair order and decreetal order made in New I.A.No.1 of 2022

(old I.A.No.442 of 2022) in O.S.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the District

Munsif, Keeranur, Pudukkottai District, dated 16.09.2022.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.Kumaravel

For Respondent : Mr.M.Rajarajan

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.66

_________

Page 1 of 7

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.2477 of 2022

of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur, Pudukkottai

District, against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.1 of 2022,

dated 16.09.2022.

2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S.No.66 of

2015 for the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner as defendant

filed his written statement in the above suit. While so, the petitioner has

took out an application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking the leave of

the Court to file an additional written statement.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff has

encroached his property. Hence, it is necessary for the petitioner to file

an additional written statement to that effect. The same was resisted by

the respondent/plaintiff stating that there is no such encroachment made

by the respondent as alleged by the petitioner/defendant. In fact, the

petitioner/defendant failed to co-operate with the Advocate

Commissioner in measuring the property and therefore, leave shall not be

granted to the petitioner to file an additional written statement.

_________

Page 2 of 7

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.2477 of 2022

4. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the

respective parties, dismissed the above petition stating that the petition

has been filed after a lapse of seven years and also observed that the

intention of the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings. Assailing

the same, the present revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

Court should be liberal in receiving the additional written statement and

taking an inconsistent plea in the additional written statement, cannot be

held against the parties, who wants to file additional written statement.

He would further submit that filing an additional written statement

belatedly, cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petition. There must be

some liberal approach given to the parties to have a fair adjudication.

Moreover, the inadvertent mistake committed by the counsel while

drafting written statement, cannot be a ground to defeat the genuine

claim of the parties. To support his contention, he has relied upon the

decisions reported in 2007 (3) CTC 554 and 2016 (4) CTC 750.

_________

Page 3 of 7

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.2477 of 2022

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the Court should not permit the party to take mutually

destructive plea in an additional written statement. The trial Court has

rightly dismissed the application, which calls for no interference.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective

counsel.

8. Order 8, Rule 9 CPC deals with the filing of subsequent

pleadings by a defendant in the suit and the same reads as follows:-

"No pleading subsequent to the written statement of

a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or

counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the

Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, bu the

Court may at any time require a written statem