The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing a plaintiff to file a reply statement in a partition suit, holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.10.2017
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP.PD.No.3478 of 2017
and CMP.No.16152 of 2017
B.Jafferulla Khan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. B.Ayaz Khan
2. B.Asraf Khan
3. B. Ayub Khan
4. B.Mansoor Ali Khan
5. B.Mumtaz Begum
..Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and final orders passed in I.A.No.113 of 2017 in O.S.No.177 of 2016, dated 12.06.2017 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ilangovan
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
2
the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 2016 before the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore for partition. In the aforesaid suit, the third respondent herein filed written statement. The first respondent herein / plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.113 of 2017 before the court below, seeking permission to file reply statement to give reply to the written statement filed by the third defendant about the execution of the will. The petitioner herein filed counter statement. However, the court below has allowed the application. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
that new plea has been introduced in the reply statement by the first respondent / plaintiff. Therefore, the said application ought to have been dismissed.
the application by holding that the said reply statement has been filed by the plaintiff for denial of statement made in the written statement and reply to the written statement filed by the first
3
defendant about the execution of Will by his father. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner.
and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
24.10.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/no
Internet: Yes/No
lok
4
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
lok
To
The learned I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore.
CRP.PD.No.3478 of 2017
and CMP.No.16152 of 2017
24.10.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition filed to set aside the order allowing the reply statement should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.Jafferulla Khan
B.Ayaz Khan
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
