TAJDEEN Vs. ABDUL MUTHALIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM -adverting upon the memo order dated 19.82008 passed in I.A. No. 3835 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1081 of 2004 by the principal District Munsif Kallakurichi, this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this civil revision petition, as stood exposited from the records, succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly could be portrayed thusTHE revision petitioner as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 1081 of 2004 for injunction as against the defendants, Where upon D2 filed the written statement, issues were framed and the plaintiff also adduced evidence and closed his side, When the matter was posted for defendant-s evidence, the defendant also filed chief examination affidavit, However, thereafter I.A. No. 3835 of 2007 was filed in the said O.S. for filing additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9. THE trial Court allowed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focused on various grounds.

(3.) THE lower Court, without adverting to these vital points simply, as a matter of routine, allowed the I.A. for filing the additional written statement. In the original written statement, the settlement deed dated 173.1960 was denied, whereas, in the additional written statement the versions are such as though it was acted upon. After the major part of the trial was over, the defendants have chosen to take an antithetical stand in the additional written statement quite contrary to what they committed themselves in black and white in their earlier written statement. I would like to extract here under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. for ready reference.-Order 8 Rule 9 Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set- off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court thinks fit but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.-6. It is crystal clear from the above that only on sound reasons, the Court could grant leave to file additional written statement. Here in view of the reasons set out above, absolutely there is no rhyme or reason for granting permission to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the said I.A. shall stand dismissed.7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs, Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.