DEIVASIGAMANI Vs. C.P. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 38 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Perundurai. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 276 of 2015 in O.S. No. 38 of 2011 under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC, to receive additional written statement. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application on 03.07.2015, observing that no reason was given in the affidavit as to why the revision petitioner/D1 did not make the pleadings in the earlier additional written statement, that are to be pleaded in the present additional written statement. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) From a perusal of the records, I find that earlier the revision petitioner/D1 had filed I.A. No. 564 of 2013 in O.S. No. 38 of 2011 to receive additional written statement in the suit. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 13.08.2013 and thereafter, the respondents herein/plaintiffs filed their reply. On the basis of the additional written statement, additional issues were framed on 05.10.2013 by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/D1 remained ex parte and he filed I.A. No. 517 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte order and the said application was allowed on 20.11.2014. Thereafter, P.W.1 was examined in full and P.W.2 was also examined in chief. P.W.2 has to be cross-examined. At this stage, the revision petitioner/D1 has filed the present Interlocutory Application seeking to receive the additional written statement. The Trial Court has found that no reason was given in the affidavit by the revision petitioner/D1 as to why he did not make the pleadings in the earlier additional written statement that are to be pleaded in the present additional written statement. Further, the Trial Court has also found that the revision petitioner/D1 is in possession of the entire suit properties and enjoying the suit properties on his own; as the suit is for partition, prolonging the suit would benefit the revision petitioner/D1. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to receive the additional written statement. Under such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.