GANGADURAI Vs. E.N.PALANICHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in the suit in order to challenge the order dated 04.06.2013 whereby, an interim application iled by the first Respondent in the suit, under Order VIII C.R.P.(MD)No.653 of 2014(PD) Rule 9 CPC, for leave to file an additional written statement was allowed by the trial Court. The facts that are relevant for the purposes of disposing of this Civil Revision Petition are briefly stated herein. The Revision Petitioner herein filed a suit in the year 1999, originally numbered as O.S. No.482 of 1999, for a declaration that he is one of the first Trustees of the Akshaya Vidyalaya Charitable Trust (the Charitable Trust) and for a permanent injunction to restrain the second Defendant from disbursing loans to the Charitable Trust. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul and renumbered as O.S.No.401 of 2010.

(2.) The Respondent herein/ first Defendant filed the written statement in the said suit on 22.06.2000. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff filed an interim application in I.A.No.387 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 09.03.2010 on the basis that it was filed belatedly and for the purpose of protracting the proceedings in the suit. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff filed a proof affidavit in April 2011. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent herein filed I.A.No.497 of 2012 so as to examine Sivasankaramoorthy as DW-1 before the said Respondent is examined as a witness. Eventually, the said application was dismissed as 'not pressed' on 03.10.2012. Meanwhile, the evidence of the Plaintiff was concluded sometime in the year 2012. Subsequent thereto, I.A.No. 260 of 2013 was filed by the Respondent/ first Defendant to file an additional written statement. In the affidavit in support of the said application, it is stated that the suit was posted for the Defendant's evidence on 04.06.2013 and that, at that juncture, the Respondent/ first Defendant's counsel advised him that certain vital facts were omitted in the written statement and that the said facts are vital to prove the case. In this regard, it is also stated therein that the original written statement was filed through the earlier counsel and that the advise with regard to the omission of vital facts was provided by the present counsel namely, Shri.N.Ramalingam and Shri.P.Dhandapani, Advocates, Dindigul.

(3.) It is further stated in the said affidavit that the additional facts are only an explanation of the real facts and that the introduction of the new plea would not change the character of the suit. The said application was opposed by the Revision Petitioner/ Plaintiff by filing a counter. In the said counter, the Revision Petitioner stated that the interim application for filing an additional written statement was filed in order to avoid the disclosure of the truth during the examination of the Respondent / first Defendant. He further stated therein that the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff was cross-examined on the basis of the plaint, the documents and the written statement. It is also stated therein that the additional written statement is liable to be rejected because it has been submitted belatedly and after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff and PW-2. However, the trial Court allowed the said application on the basis that the statements in the additional written statement are not contrary to the statements in the original written statement.