Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Tamizhmani S/o. Palanimuthu – Appellant
Versus
Ezhilventhan S/o. Late. Renganathan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's petition for additional written statement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. importance of allowing all defenses to prevent multiplicity. (Para 6) |
| 3. outcome of the allowed petition. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Petition to set aside the order and decree dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Learned Addl. District Munsif, Tittagudi in IA No.207 of 2024 in OS No.114 of 2017.
2. Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 207 of 2024 in O.S.
No. 114 of 2017, the defendant has preferred the present revision.
3. Before the Trial Court, the defendant filed a petition under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file an additional written statement in O.S. No. 114 of 2017. It was stated that at the time of filing the original written statement, certain particulars relating to the suit properties could not be furnished. The petitioner submitted that he had gone to Tiruppur in search of employment and, upon returning and verifying the original documents, he realized that certain material particulars and documents had not been incorporated earlier. Hence, he sought leave of the Court to file an additional written statement along with additional documents.
4. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
