NEELAMBAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this civil revision petition (C.R.P(PD) No. 3257 of 2008), aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.161 of 2008 in O.S.No.454 of 2004 dated 16.2.2008 by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram in allowing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.454 of 2004 before the trial Court which has been filed for declaration that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc from in any manner interfering with the suit properties.

(3.) IN this connection, it is quite opt to point out that the Order 8 Rule 9 CPC enjoins that the first part enacts a ban on projecting of subsequent pleadings, after the filing of the written statement. However, this ban is not applicable to the pleadings, which are by way of defence to set-off or counter claim. But certainly with the leave of the Court, subsequent pleading can be filed. But under the second part, the Court at any time may require written statement or additional written statement. The employment of words 'any of the parties' indicates that the rule is applicable to the plaintiff as well as the defendant because in a counter claim, the status of the plaintiff is that of a defendant. But second part of the rule does not confer any right on a party to file written statement or additional written statement. But he can do so only on being 'required' by the Court to do so. INdeed, the additional written statement should not set up a totally new case or project facts at direct variance with the original written statement so as to completely change the nature and character of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court. IN an extraordinary cases, Order 8 Rule 9 CPC gives the Court judicial discretion to permit the defendant to file written statement within a span of 30 days for the reasons to be recorded in writing. But in regard to the filing of additional written statement is concerned, Order 8 Rule 9 CPC gives ample power to the Court to grant leave to file additional written statement and it does not prescribe restriction as to what defence has to be taken. It is true that in additional written statement, the Court will not allow the inconsistent pleas. IN the instant case, affidavit for reception of additional written statement on the side of the defendants before the trial Court has been sworn to by the counsel and not by the parties. IN this connection, it is not out of place to point out that Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC refers to the filing of the written statement by the defendants. Therefore, as a logical corollary, this Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in I.A.No.161 of 2008 must be actually sworn to and filed by the party to the litigation before a Court of law and not by the counsel on record who cannot take the role of a client and in that view of the matter, without going into the merits and demerits of the Court, this Court allows the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.