JAYANTHI Vs. K L NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed OS No. 172 of 2002 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale against the sole defendant, Sri Giriraj. The sole defendant died and his legal representatives, the petitioner herein and her mother, the 2nd respondent herein, came on record. They have also filed an additional written statement. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed IA No. 782 of 2012 under Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement She pleaded that in the recent past, she came to know about the role said to have been played by one Sri D.V. Gopal Rao, an Advocate, who at one point of time, is said to have appeared in their favour, and on some other occasions, against them. The gist of her plea was that the written statement filed by the original defendant was under the guidance of Sri D.V. Gopal Rao and certain facts were not correctly stated. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 20.9.2012. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

(2.) The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the legal representatives of the original defendant. The suit filed in the year 2002 for the relief of specific performance did not record much of progress for one reason or the other. When the petitioner and the 2nd respondent came on record, it was open to them to file independent written statements, even at variance with what was filed by the original defendant. However, they did not feel the necessity of filing any fresh or additional written statement on their behalf. As a matter of fact, they have adopted the written statement filed by the original defendant.

(3.) At one point of time, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed additional written statement. The contentions touching upon limitation and the maintainability of the suit were raised, in addition to dealing with the plea that was introduced through amendment of the plaint, through which relief of refund of the amount paid as advance, was introduced.