R. PRAKASH Vs. M. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition is filed as against the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the District Judge, Karur in allowing the I.A. which was filed under Order 8, Rule 9 for filing the Additional Written Statement by the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the trial was in progress, the defendant did chose to file the Additional Written Statement setting out a new plea that he settled the suit property in favour of his sons, which cannot be a tenable one in accordance with law. He would pray for setting aside the order of the Lower Court.

(2.) A perusal of the Additional Written Statement would show that the suit was once dismissed for default. However, the defendant executed the settlement deed in favour of his sons, gifting the suit property. Except that narration of facts, I could see no further pleas in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Doctrine of lis pendens also is applicable and in such a case, there is no necessity for the defendant to file the Additional Written Statement. The lis pendens transfer would in no way be a defence for the defendant.