PALANIAMMAL Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have projected the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 17.06.2008 in I.A.No.257 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sankari in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants under Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to receive the additional written statement.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.257 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'the suit has been filed in the year 2004 and that the amendment to Hindu Succession Act will not apply to the revision petitioners and has resultantly dismissed the application.'

(3.) AS far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioners/defendants in I.A.No.257 of 2008 are claiming equal shares in the family properties by virtue of an amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and therefore, they make a claim of common -th shares each in the family properties and to that effect they seek the leave of the Court and file additional written statement. It is an axiomatic fact that it is within the power of the Court to allow a party to file the additional written statement.