KALIAMMAL Vs. P MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition against the order dated 15.10.2008 in I.A.No. 1017 of 2008 in O.S.No. 325 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.)The petitioners are defendants in OS.No. 325 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode. The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants on the strength of the sale agreement admittedly executed by these petitioners on 14.12.2006. In the written statement filed by these petitioners originally, they have unambiguously admitted the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the first plaintiff and also the receipt of advance amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, but denied the allegations that time is not essence of contract. In para 8 of the written statement, they have also pleaded that the stipulated period of three months lapsed on 16.3.2007 as per the terms of the agreement, before that, the defendants approached the plaintiffs and conveyed their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed on 16.3.2007 and all the defendants were waiting at Sub Registrar Office, Uthukuli from morning 10.00 a.m. to evening 5.00 p.m. But the plaintiffs have not turned up to the Sub Registrar's office.

(2.) THE petitioners filed an application in I.A.No. 1017 of 2008 in the suit praying the Court to receive the additional statement filed by them. THE petition was resisted by the respondents by stating that the petitioners as defendants are taking up the pleas both in the original and additional written statement which are destructive against each other and hence, it could not be allowed.

(3.) MR.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the second respondent would garner support from the decision rendered in Srinivasan V. Muthammal (1998 ii CTC 94), in which it is held that the application to receive the additional written statement raising alternative plea cannot be allowed since it raises inconsistent pleas depriving the plaintiff's benefit of statutory presumption. Learned counsel for the second respondent also placed much reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gautam Sarup V. Leela Jetly - (2008) 7 Scc 85, wherein, their Lordships after referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court held that resiling from admissions made in original statement is not permissible in law and the discretion of the Court in permitting amendment to pleadings has to be exercised judiciously. It is also observed that when the defendant admits in the written statement pleas and contention of the plaintiff, thereafter, he cannot be permitted to amend the same to deny or dispute plaintiff's claim. The principles laid down in the above said decision are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.