P N DEENADAYALAN Vs. RAMAGIRI NARASIMHULU CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Revisions arise out of the Common Order of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, made in I. A. Nos. 631 and 630 of 2002 in O. S. No. 212 of 1989, dated 09-10-2002, dismissing the Petitions filed under Or. 8 R. 9 C. P. C. declining to receive Additional Written Statement. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of these Revision Petitions could briefly be stated thus:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the Applications, the Defendants 1 and 3 have preferred these Revisions. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that when the Plaint has been amended several times -- amended for possession and impleading of D3 as Party -- opportunity is to be given to the Defendants to file the Additional Written Statement. Submitting that, there is no delay in filing the Additional Written Statement, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that wide power is conferred upon the Court under Or. 8 R. 9 C. P. C. in receiving the Additional Written Statement. It is further submitted that by receiving the Additional Written Statement, no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff.