This court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the lower court's order allowing a defendant to file an additional written statement. The court referenced liberal judicial discretion under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and quashed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition 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: 06.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP.PD.No.3711 of 2017 and CMP.No.17236 of 2017
V.Chinnappaiya Naicker ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Balamurugan
2.S.Balamurugan
rep.by his Power Agent
G.Selvaraj
... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.04.2015 in I.A.No.222/2014 in O.S.No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kanchipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mubarak Basha
O R D E R
According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed a suit in
O.S.No.314 of 2010 for relief for declaration that the plaintiff had
perfected his title to the plaint schedule property by adverse
2
possession and consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering the property. The petitioner filed written statement and trial Court has framed the issues and the suit has been posted for trial. At this stage, the present application has been filed for the reason that certain pleadings has been added on the basis of certain documents. The respondent herein / defendant has filed the application in I.A.No.222 of 2014 disputing the court fees and also raising new plea of land grabbing. The trial court has allowed the said application. Hence, the petitioner has filed counter statement and objected the application filed by the respondent / defendant. The trial court without considering the objection of the revisional petitioner has allowed the application. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3
perused the materials available on record.
of 2014 in the suit after the chief examination of PW1. The respondent has raised the additional pleadings in the written statement by raising question of deficit court fee in terms of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and
also raised the pleadings of land grabbing. The trial court has allowed the application by holding that the PW1 is partly examined and the case has been posted for cross continuation in respect of PW1. At this stage, the plaintiff has objected the same. The aforesaid pleading of the deficit court fee is a legal issue that can be raised at the belated stage also in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of
Muthusamy Vs. Thangarajan reported in (2005) 4 MLJ 119, wherein this Court has held as follows.
statement or additional written statement from
any party fixing time, not exceeding 30 days,
4
thereby showing the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9, PC is liberal in its application, giving wide discretion to the Court, probably to give a chance to the parties, to agitate their right even raising subsequent pleas, for which, the Court should not be rigid. The courts should exercise their discretion liberally, when it will not affect
the right of the party"
06.10.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No
5
Internet : Yes/No lok
To The Additional District Munsif, The Additional District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.
6
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
lok
CRP.PD.No.3711 of 2017
and
CMP.No.17236 of 2017
7
06.10.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to file an additional written statement raising pleas of deficit court fee and land grabbing at a belated stage after the plaintiff's witness ex
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muthusamy Vs. ThangarajanReferred¶24
(2005) 4 MLJ 119
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Chinnappaiya Naicker
S.Balamurugan
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
