A single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application for a second additional written statement filed post-cross-examination, finding no error or irregularity.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; 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 : 08.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(PD).No.848 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.4205 of 2017
1.Shanmugam
2.Senthilkumar
... Petitioners
Vs.
Subbulakshmi
... Respondent
(Cause title as per order dated 06.10.2016 in I.A.No.253 of 2016 in O.S.No.174 of 2012)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.10.2016 made in I.A.No.256 of 2015 in O.S.No.174 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.E.Pratap O R D E R
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.253 of 2016 in O.S.No.174 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, the defendants 3 & 4 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.174 of 2012 for partition and
2
separate possession.
3.The suit was filed in the year 2012. Thereafter, in October 2012, the defendants filed their written statement and on 13.03.2013, the 3rd defendant filed his additional written statement. Subsequently, on 27.08.2014, the 3rd defendant filed his second additional written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a reply on 07.10.2014 and also filed the amended plaint on 06.08.2015. The 3rd defendant filed his additional written statement, for the reply statement filed by the plaintiff, on 12.01.2016. Thereafter, the defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.253 of 2016 seeking permission to file another additional written statement. The application filed by the defendants 3 & 4 was opposed by the plaintiff stating that the defendants have already filed their additional written statement and there is no necessity for filing another additional written statement.
4.Admittedly, the case is posted for the cross examination of P.W.1. When the defendants have filed their additional written statement to the reply statement filed by the plaintiff, they cannot keep on filing applications for filing additional written statement. When the suit is posted for trial and the same is posted for the cross examination of P.W.1., at this stage, the
3
filing of the present application would only establish that the defendants have filed the application to drag on the matter. The trial Court, taking into consideration all these aspects, dismissed the petition.
5.I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial
Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No Internet : Yes va To
08.03.2017
The I Additional District Court, Erode.
4
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
va
C.R.P.(PD).No.848 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.4205 of 2017
08.03.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any error or irregularity in dismissing the application for filing another additional written statement at the cross examination stage.
If the challenge to the trial court's order in the civil revision petition is devoid of merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shanmugam
Senthilkumar
Subbulakshmi
M. Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
