Subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted after the commencement of trial if they are intended to fill lacunae in the original pleadings or if they are filed at a belated stage without sufficient justification.

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, in I.A.No.205 of 2022 in O.S.No.289 of 2016, dated 20.07.2022.

2.Heard Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3.The respondent is the plaintiff and the deceased sole petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.289 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.289 of 2016 seeking specific performance of the contract of sale, dated 24.06.2015 and to direct the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit properties by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- and for other consequential reliefs.

4.In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a registered sale agreement on 24.06.2015 and the plaintiff/respondent has paid a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as advance to the defendant on the date of the sale agreement and the period for conclusion of the contract was fixed as one year from 24.06.2015. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has insisted the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. A legal notice was issued by the respondent/plaintiff on 21.05.2016 calling upon the petitioner/defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 22.05.2016, the petitioner/defendant had met the respondent/plaintiff and requested one month time to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Since the respondent/plaintiff awaited for a positive sign from the petitioner/defendant and no reply was received from the petitioner/defendant, he had filed the present suit.

5.During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.205 of 2022 in O.S.No.289 of 2016 under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC for receiving reply statement filed along with the said application stating that the defendant has filed the written statement with false averments and in order to deny the contents in the written statement filed by the defendant, the present application to receive the reply statement has been filed.

6.The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, by relying on the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2014 Madras 50 in the case of P.Saraswathy vs C.Subramanian , vide order, dated 20.07.2022, had allowed the said application. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

"5......... Hence, as per the above dictum even after the commencement of trial the petitioner/plaintiff can be permitted to file reply statement and as per the facts of this case the new averment was put forth in the written statement that the contract of sale is executed for the security of the loan availed by the respondent/defendant. Hence, the new averment should be explained and denied by the plaintiff. As per the evidence, if there is no pleadings no evidence can be adduced and without any pleadings could be considered by the Court. Hence, in the interest of justice the application should be allowed and the contention of the respondent/defendant that already PW.1 examined and cross examined. Hence this application is not maintainable and not accepted by this court as per the dictum mentioned above. From the above discussion this court comes to the conclusion that the petition can be allowed.

6)In the result, the petition is allowed. No costs."

7.Challenging the same, the defendant in the suit has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

8.During the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the sole petitioner/defendant d