Dismissed

Prithivirajan v. Tholkappian

Madras HC12 Feb 2018CRP/296/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the lower court's refusal to allow an additional written statement. The petitioner sought to raise an extra plea after attaining majority, but the court noted the significant delay coincided with the defendant evidence stage, finding no illegality in the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the application to raise an additional written statement was confirmed; the civil revision petition was dismissed; the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit by

Prithivirajan Vs Tholkappian — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP.PD.No.296 of 2018

¶7

and CMP.No.1615 of 2018
Prithivirajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Tholkappian .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 16.09.2017 made in I.A.No.233 of 2017 in O.S.No.245 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.R.Arun Dattan

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.J.Antony Jesus

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

¶13

16.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.233 of 2017 in O.S.No.245 of 2003 on the file of

¶14

the learned Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

According to the petitioner, the respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.245 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam seeking partition. The second defendant has filed the written statement on 10.11.2003, subsequently, he filed the additional written statement on 01.07.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has become major, cause title was amended and declared that the third defendant has attained majority. Subsequently, vakalat was filed by the counsel for the third defendant on 29.04.2016 and hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 16.06.2016 for filing additional written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff's side evidence was closed and the suit was posted for defendant's side evidence on 20.04.2017. The petitioner has filed the instant application to raise the additional written statement by the third defendant in the aforesaid suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition before this Court.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third defendant attained majority and seeks time for filing additional written

¶19

statement. The first defendant has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the said application has been filed to raise the additional

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

written statement, since the second defendant has not raised additional plea in the written statement, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit

¶24

is of the year 2013. The petitioner has filed the application in the year 2017 to raise the additional written statement and the same was not accepted. Since the said application has been filed by the petitioner belatedly, this

¶25

civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Considering the submission made by both parties and on perusing

¶27

the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner/third defendant has attained majority, after attaining majority and he filed vakalat on 29.04.2016, the counsel for the petitioner seeks time for filing

¶28

additional written statement and the suit was posted on 20.04.2017 for defendant's side evidence, the delay is not properly explained in the

¶29

application, that too, at the stage of defendant's side evidence. The petitioner has to prove the genuineness of the will, by adducing oral and documentary evidence, at the time of the trial in the suit. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

¶33

kkd

¶34

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both

¶35

sides,I am inclined to pass the following orders:

¶36

a) The impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam in I.A.No. I.A.No.233 of 2017 in O.S.No.245 of 2003 is hereby confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶37

(b) On instructions, both the parties undertake that they will cooperate for speedy disposal of the suit before the trial court. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 30.06.2018. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶38

12.02.2018

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No kkd To

¶40

The Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

¶41

CRP.PD.No.296 of 2018

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

¶44

and CMP.No.1615 of 2018

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

Prithivirajan v. Tholkappian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithivirajan v. Tholkappian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Palanisami Vs M. Sumathi

M. Pavithra Vs M. Raja @ Vithuramaharaja

Muthusamy Died Vs C.Saradhamani

D.Pravin Ravi, Vs Thiru.Pradeep Yedav

Smrity Vs Srinivas Balasubramanian

Smrity Vs Srinivas Balasubramanian