A party cannot amend their pleadings to introduce contradictory claims that negate prior admissions, ensuring the integrity of the judicial process.

O R D E R

The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.165 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Court, Karur are the revision petitioners herein. The civil revision petition is directed against dismissal of I.A.No.12 of 2024 filed by them for reception of additional written statement.

2.The respondent herein (V.Rathinam) filed O.S.No.165 of 2021 for recovering a sum of Rs.54,62,500/- with interest. The case of the plaintiff is that one Ramanathan had borrowed loans from him and executed as many as five promissory notes. Ramanathan passed away. The defendants have inherited his estate. Hence the suit claim is to the effect that the defendants should pay the said amount from and out of the estate of the deceased Ramanathan.

3.The defendants filed written statement admitting the execution of the suit promissory notes. The defence of the defendants was that the liability was settled by Ramanathan during his life time itself. Based on the rival pleadings, issues were framed. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. He also examined the attestors of the promissory notes as P.W.2 and P.W.3. While cross examining P.W.1, the defendants' counsel specifically suggested that the deceased Ramanathan had already settled the plaintiff's claim. Of-course, the plaintiff denied the said suggestion. The plaintiff has closed his evidence. 4.It was at this stage, I.A.No.12 of 2024 was filed for reception of additional written statement. The Court below dismissed the said I.A. vide order dated 09.07.2024. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

5.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am satisfied that the trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.12 of 2024. This is because in the additional written statement, a mutually destructive plea has been taken. While in the original written statement, the execution of the suit promissory notes was admitted and the only defence was that the liability had been settled, in the additional written statement, even the execution of the promissory notes has been questioned.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent draws my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [(2009) 11 SCC 609 Sarva Shramik Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Limited ], it was held therein that while an inconsistent plea can be taken by a party, what is impermissible is taking of an inconsistent plea by way of amendment thereby denying the other side, the benefit of an admission contained in the earlier pleading. It was also held that mutually repugnant and contradictory pleas, destructive of each other may also not be permitted to be urged simultaneously.

7.The Court below has only applied the yardstick laid down in the aforesaid decision. It is obvious that the defendants want to wriggle out of the consequences of the admission earlier made by them. If reception of additional written statement is permitted, the plaintiff will be denied the benefit that had already accrued in his favour. Interference is not warranted. The civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ias To:

The Principal District Court, Karur.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias

08.08.2024