S KANAGASABAI; SUMATHI Vs. K JEYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.09.2013 in I.A.No.294 of 2013 in O.S.No.141 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.

(2.) The revision petitioners herein as the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaring the suit property R.S.No.31/4 0.13.0 hectares is a pond and for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to remove the encroachment made by the first defendant in the suit property and keep it as a pond and directing the defendants 3 and 4 not to assess the shed as house property and not to give electricity service connection to the suit property. The first defendant filed a written statement and contested the same. During cross-examination of P.W.2, who is an V.A.O., first defendant came forward with the application in I.A.No.294 of 2013 under Section 151 of C.P.C. for reception of additional written statement. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, against which, the plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the suit is filed for declaring the suit property is a pond and also for mandatory injunction and for other reliefs. The first defendant in his written statement raised a plea that he is a tenant under one Ummul Huthaa, W/o Abdul Lathif and put construction of tank for storing tar for the need of his contractor profession and also parking his vehicle. After commencement of trial and during cross-examination of P.W.2/V.A.O., the first defendant came forward with the application for reception of additional written statement, in which, he has taken a new plea that the first defendant purchased the suit property from Ummul Huthaa on 19.09.2008 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. So the defendant has taken new plea and that factum was not considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the defendant has not filed the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C., in which, there is a provision of law in reception of additional written statement, but the defendant quoted wrong provision of law by invoking Section 151 of C.P.C. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court reported in CDJ (Dr.M.N.Sambhavi and others v. A.Rajagopal and others,2006 MHC 225).