FARIDHA BEGUM Vs. U.M.K. BATCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.46/2013 in O.S.No.283/2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, filed by the defendant to receive additional written statement along with counter claim. Since the application was allowed in spite of the objection, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2010 and the defendant filed his written statement on 05.10.2010. After framing issues, the matter was taken up for trial and proof affidavit of the plaintiff was also filed. Thereafter, after a lapse of three years, the present application has been filed to permit the defendant to file additional written statement and also to make a counter claim. This is per se against Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the Trial Court order is erroneous, against law and liable to be set aside.

(2.) Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the factum of letting out the wakf property to third parties and the rent being appropriated by the plaintiff came to the knowledge of the defendant only in the year 2013. Therefore, immediately application seeking permission to file additional written statement along with counter claim was filed and the Trial Court has rightly allowed the same to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There is no error in the order of the Trial Court, hence, the revision petition is devoid of merit.

(3.) In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order 8 Rule 6-A and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bollepanda P.Poonacha and another vs. K.M.Madapa, 2008 13 SCC 179. It is relevant to extract below paragraphs 15, 18 and 19 of the said judgment:-