GOLUGURI BULLEMMAYI Vs. GOLUGURI VENKATAREDDI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (at the admission Stage) This Revision is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 80/85. She had filed her written statement on 7-8-86. She filed IA. No. 392/89, alleging that the written statement was not read over to her before she signed the same and therefore prayed to receive the Additional Written Statement, which she had filed along with the petition. The trial court found that acceptance of that additional written statement will change the character of the pleadings, because it was quite contrary to what she had stated in her original written statement. While the petitioner/1st defendant had stated in her original written statement that the properties of her late husband which are the subject matter of the suit were self-acquired, the Additional Written Statement is to the effect that they are ancestral. Submissions relating to possession also differ considerably in the Written Statement and the Additional Written Statement. It is in these circumstances, that the trial court refused to allow the petitioner to file the Additional Written Statement. The court also felt that the reasons mentioned for filing the Additional Written Statement viz., that the then counsel had not read over the written statement to her before she signed the same nor had they been explained to her in Telugu before signing cannot be accepted in the absence of examination of counsel.

(2.) The trial court also took notice of the fact that instead of requesting amendment of the Written Statement already filed, the petitioner chose to file an additional written statement containing averments which were contrary to the written statement already filed.

(3.) I am of the opinion that if the intention of filing the additional written statement was to completely alter the plea which has already been taken in the Original Written Statement and not to add to or amend the same without effecting the fabric of the original defence, the trial court was right in its order refusing leave to the petitioner to file the additional written statement. This view finds support from a decision in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Ladha Ram Co, AIR 1977 SC 680 which counsel for the respondent has referred to.