A party cannot introduce repetitive claims in an additional written statement without new pleas.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file additional written statement.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for partition against the petitioners.

The respondent is the daughter of the first petitioner and sister of the second petitioner. According to the respondent, the suit properties are ancestral properties of her father Sundara Goundar and she claimed 1/3rd share in the subject property by filing the present suit. The petitioners herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that the suit properties were not ancestral properties. It was also stated that even during lifetime of Sundara Goundar, he executed a settlement deed in favour of plaintiff on 29.05.2002 settling certain properties in her favour. After death of Sundara Goundar, the remaining properties were orally partitioned between the petitioners 1 and 2 and based on the oral partition memorandum of family arrangement was prepared on 04.01.2004. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent has no right over the suit properties. The petitioners also raised a plea of ouster and stated that the suit prayer for partition was barred by limitation. The suit is at the stage of cross examination of PW.1. At this Stage, the present application has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement.

3. A perusal of the additional written statement filed by the petitioners would indicate that they simply reiterated the earlier pleadings raised in the main written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement, the petitioners have not mentioned any specific new plea to be raised in the additional written statement. The trial Court by comparing the original written statement and additional written statement rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not raised any new plea and therefore, filing of an additional written statement just reiterating the earlier plea is not at all necessary.

4. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.