PAPATHI Vs. SAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 552 of 2004 are the revision petitioners-before this Court.

(2.) THE suit in O.S.No. 52 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the common well, electric motor and, the service connection situated in the suit schedule property. Written statement has been filed and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.849 of 2007 was filed by the defendant seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. THE said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. THE trial court by order dated 2.1.2008 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 5 submits that in the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction, written statements were already filed by the defendants refuting all the allegations. While so, the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.849 of 2007 seeking permission to file an additional written statement for the purpose of clarifying the ownership of the well, the motor and the service connection. But, the trial Court on misconception of facts and law dismissed the application. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court failed to see the defendants 4 and 5 were impleaded only recently and as such filing of additional written statement would not cause any prejudice to the respondent.