A. PALANIVEL Vs. RAJAMANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 06.01.2015 made in I.A. No.620 of 2014 in O.S. No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Rasipuram.

(2.) The petitioner is first defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Rasipuram. The first respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 for partition and injunction. Earlier a preliminary decree was passed. When I.A for final decree was pending, preliminary decree was set aside. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 filed written statement on 30.08.2013 and are contesting the suit. The first respondent filed proof affidavit. The first respondent filed present I.A.No.620 of 2014 under Order 8, Rule 9 and section 151 of C.P.C for permission to file the reply statement. According to the first respondent, the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 have filed the written statement stating about the oral partition and other facts which are not true. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the first respondent to file reply statement. The written statement filed by the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 was in English. Only now, the first respondent came to know the contents of the written statement and filed the present application seeking permission of the Court to file reply statement. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments and submitted that the first respondent has not stated when she came to know about the contents of the written statement which was filed on 30.08.2013. Only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the first respondent has come out with the present application. After commencement of trial, as per Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C, the reply statement which amounts to amendment of the plaint cannot be entertained and prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and all the materials on record allowed the application in the interest of justice in order to give an opportunity to the first respondent to put forth her case on merits.