CHINNASAMY GOUNDER Vs. BALASUBRAMANIYAM GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite time having been given, no one represented on the side of the respondent.

(2.) THE gist and kernel of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: THE plaintiff/respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No,249 of 2006 seeking declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in relation to the suit scheduled properties. THE defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. Whereupon issues were framed trial commenced and PW1 was examined in chief. While so, the defendants filed I.A.No.1291 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC enclosing the additional written statement. However, after hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, by allowing the additional written statement, the Court is not going to pass a decree based on the additional written statement. It all depends upon the evidence to be adduced on either side. As such, the lower court could have very well allowed the additional written statement to be filed and that too, when the matter was at the earliest stage of trial , so to say, before the commencement of cross examination.