NAGAMALAI GOUNDER Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP. NO:1142 of 2004 has been filed against the fair and final order dated 5. 12. 2003 made in I. A. No. 1272 of 2003 in O. S. No. 262 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected the I. A. , filed by the defendants to receive additional evidence.

(2.) CRP. NO:115 of 2006 has been filed against the fair and final order dated 24. 8. 2005 made in I. A. No. 1106 of 2005 in O. S. No. 262 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, whereby the learned Trial Judge has ordered to struck off the I. A. , filed by the plaintiffs to implead the LR. s of the deceased first plaintiff as all the proceedings in the suit has been stayed by the High Court in the earlier CRP and the said I. A. , has been mistakenly numbered by the trial court.

(3.) AS regards the first CRP, the defendants filed the said I. A. , to receive the Additional Written Statement to put forth the fact which are in the realm of relevant facts and not the facts in issue and it is filed only to obviate a possible objection from the plaintiffs side that the fact which the defendants have put forth in the additional written statement has not been specifically pleaded. According to the defendants when P. W. 1 was cross examined by the defendants' counsel, a question was put to him about the joint ownership of the suit property by the plaintiffs' predecessors. Since the said question was objected to by the plaintiff's counsel the same was not recorded and on the memo filed by the defendants' counsel, the same was dismissed on 27. 10. 2003. Hence only to fill up the lacuna created by them, the defendants intend to file the additional written statement only to obviate the possible objection from the plaintiffs which they did not plead specifically in the written statement. According to the defendants additional written statement can be received at any stage.