The court allows a reply statement in civil proceedings to clarify issues raised by a defendant and corrects a trial court's erroneous grounds for dismissal.

COMMON ORDER

The Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner seeking to receive reply statement and to receive additional documents.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent. The suit was originally filed on the Original Side of this Court on 31.07.2006. Though the suit summon was served on the respondent/defendant in December 2009, he failed to appear and he was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed and latter it was set aside. The respondent/defendant belatedly filed set aside petition with condone delay petition in Application No.3878 of 2014. After condonation of delay, the exparte decree was set aside by this Court in June-2022 and the suit was transferred from the file of this Court to the file of VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, written statement was filed belatedly.

3. The petitioner filed these two applications before the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai during March-2023. According to the petitioner, the respondent in his written statement raised allegations regarding the transactions that happened between 1996 and 2003 between him and the promoter company by name M/s.Nirankaar Constructions Private Limited in which the plaintiff is the Director. The petitioner further states that transactions between the company and the respondent/defendant were looked after by him, the said company passed a Board Resolution on 11.07.2003 authorising the petitioner to deal with the respondent. The petitioner was also authorised to take action against respondent in his individual capacity for collection of dues payable to the company. In order to raise these pleas in his pleadings, which are only response to the pleas raised by the respondent/defendant in the written statement, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 to receive reply statement and I.A.No.3 of 2023 to receive copy of the Board Resolution, dated 11.07.2003. These two applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court dismissed the applications filed by him on two grounds namely reply statement to the written statement was not filed in time and the pleadings raised by the petitioner/plaintiff in his reply statement are inconsistent with the original plaint and both the grounds are untenable in law.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the reply statement can be permitted only if it is required by law or any counter claim is filed by the defendant or Court permits such reply statement. In the case on hand, none of the conditions are satisfied. Therefore, the Court below was justified in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the transaction between the defendant and the company had taken place prior to 2003 and therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Sing and others reported in 2024 INSC 391.

6. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that even in the plaint averments the plaintiff clearly stated that he was engaged in construction business and in furtheran