Defendants allowed additional written statement pre-trial post-impleadment without prejudice to avoid multiplicity.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge Ariyalur, the defendants 2 and 8 have preferred this revision petition.

2. After the amendment, the defendants sought permission of the Court to file additional written statement in IA No. 3 of 2024, which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 2 and 8 have preferred this revision petition.

3. Notice served. The counsel for the respondent also appeared.

4. Admittedly, now the case is ripe for trial. At this stage, some of the purchasers were impleaded and mother of the plaintiff also been impleaded. Therefore, the second defendant wants to file additional written statement. But the same was dismissed by the trial judge by holding that now he wants to implead totally different defendants, for which he is not entitled. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. But after impleading the parties the second defendant wants to raise some more defence before the pre-trial proceedings. So far the trial has not begun. Therefore, if an opportunity was not given to the defendants before the trial court, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

By receiving additional written statement would not cause prejudice to any of the parties. But the court below has not given such opportunity and therefore the findings of the trial court is set aside. IA is allowed. He is directed to file written statement and also cooperate with the trial proceedings. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.