JEYAM Vs. K PARAMESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent appeared through counsel and though the second respondent was served with notice and his name stood printed in the cause-list, none appears on his behalf. The arguments advanced by M/s.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision Petitioners and arguments advanced by Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard. The grounds of revision petition and materials available in the typed-set of papers are also taken into consideration.

(2.) The first respondent in the Original Suit in O.S.No.15 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pudukkottai is the Petitioner in the revision Petition. The respondents have filed the above said suit for the relief of partition.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 are resisting the same on the basis of their contention that there was a oral family arrangement which took place in 2006 by which the properties were allotted to the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant, who is the second respondent in the revision Petition filed a seaprate Written statement contending that he had purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property from the defendants 1 and 2 and his interest should be protected. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge conducted the trial in which P.W.1 was examined in full and P.W.2 was examined-in-part. At that point of time, the revision Petitioners who are the defendants 1 and 2 chose to file an application in I.A.No.769 of 2012 under Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, for reception of additional written statement containing the additional plea to the effect that in 1989 itself, the first respondent/plaintiff gave her consent in writing in favour of Late. Shanmugam, husband of the first revision Petitioner, for selling the plaint 'A' schedule property. Apart from the question of admissibility of the said document, the plea now sought to be taken is resisted by the first respondent/Plaintiff on the ground that it is only a result of after-thought and an attempt to plug the loop-holes found in the defense case of the revision Petitioners/defendants 1 and 2. The said submission was also resisted on the ground of belatedness.