M.MOORTHY Vs. M.NOORJESMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2014, on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai, being aggrieved over the dismissal of his application in I.A.No.324 of 2016 preferred, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reception of the additional written statement, has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) Based on the materials placed, it is seen that the suit has been laid by the respondent / plaintiff for specific performance and permanent injunction. The suit has been filed in the year 2014. Thereafter, it is found that the revision petitioner / defendant entered appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement. Following the same, issues had been framed and accordingly, when the suit is taken up for trial, it is found that the plaintiff had examined her husband as P.W.1 and thereafter, after his examination in chief, when the matter had been listed for several dates for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1 by the revision petitioner, it is found that meanwhile, the plaintiff's husband / P.W.1 had passed away and unable to appear before the Court for tendering evidence and accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiff had examined herself as P.W.2 and the documents having been marked on her side to establish her case and thereafter, when the case was listed for several dates for the cross-examination of P.W.2 as such, the present application had come to be preferred by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.324 of 2016 for the reception of the additional written statement. That apart, it is also found that the case had once been disposed of on account of the failure of the revision petitioner to file his written statement by setting him ex parte and the evidence of the plaintiff having been accepted, the ex parte decree had been passed on 25.07.2014. On an application filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 25.07.2014, in I.A.No.309 of 2014, it is found that the same was entertained. Again, it is also found that on the failure of the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1 i.e., husband of the plaintiff, despite several opportunities, it is found that again the revision petitioner was set ex parte and on an application preferred by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.44 of 2016, the ex parte order was set aside and thereafter, as above mentioned, when the matter had been listed for the cross-examination of P.W.2 on several dates, as requested by the revision petitioner, at that stage of the matter, the application for the reception of the additional written statement has come to be levied.

(3.) It is found that according to the revision petitioner's case, his earlier counsel had passed away and thereafter, he has engaged a new counsel and on the advice of the new counsel with reference to certain legal pleas, he has been necessitated to file the additional written statement covering the said points and hence, the application for the reception of the additional written statement. The said application was resisted by the respondent / plaintiff contending that the revision petitioner has levied the application belatedly with a view to drag on the proceedings endlessly and further, it is contended that various inconsistent pleas have also been put forth by the revision petitioner in the additional written statement and in such view of the matter, the revision petitioner is not entitled to file the additional written statement and his application is liable to be dismissed.