VENKATARAMAN Vs. CHINNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.80 of 2016 in O.S.No.5 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2011 against the defendants under Order 7, Rule 1 to 6 and section 26 of CPC on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri seeking partition and other reliefs. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner/2nd defendant filed I.A.No.80 of 2016 under Order 8, Rule 9 and section 151 of CPC to grant leave to file an additional written statement and the said application was dismissed by the Court below. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Kanagaraj/first defendant has executed a registered release deed dated 07.11.2013 in favour of the petitioner in Document No.1150/2014 of SRO, Pochampalli and on execution of the release deed, the first defendant released his common half share in the suit property. In view of the collusive attitude of the first defendant and the execution of the release deed dated 07.11.2013, it is necessary to file an additional written statement. Hence, the above application has been filed seeking leave to file the additional written statement for marking of the above said document. It is true that the said application has been filed by the petitioner after the evidence was concluded. But, the Court below, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously dismissed the said application. The learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the application is allowed. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.