P.MARIAPPAN Vs. P.MOHANKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos.2879 and 2880 of 2016 are directed as against the fair and decreetal orders dtd. 12.04.2016 & 11.02.2016 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari in I.A.Nos.569 & 570 of 2015 in O.S.No.49 of 2012 respectively, thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner to receive the reply statement and to amend the plaint.

(2.) In both Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect of his half share in the suit schedule property. The respondent filed written statement along with counter claim for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. After the period of three years, the petitioner filed petition to receive the reply statement to the counter claim made by the respondent herein and also filed petition for amendment to include the prayer for declaration declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent as null and void. Both petitions were dismissed by the trial and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sale deed dtd. 11.04.2002, under which the respondent claiming recovery of possession, was obtained by playing fraud from the petitioner herein as such it is just and necessary to file the reply statement for the counter claim. The question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding the petition to file a reply statement and also to include the prayer of declaration. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following reported judgments :-