Allowed

U.Arumugam v. Ramaiah Nadar

Madras HC4 Oct 2019CRP(MD)/1121/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The High Court held that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring production of the earlier suit judgment before granting permission, allowing the revision and directing the trial court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the application for additional written statement was set aside, and permission to file the additional written statement was granted.

U.Arumugam Vs Ramaiah Nadar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

U.Arumugam : Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Ramaiah Nadar : Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.73 of 2012 in O.S.No.115 of 2007 dated 09.03.2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nanguneri by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Court below dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C., to permit the petitioner to file an additional written statement.

¶13

2.The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner and another seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Initially, a written statement came to be filed by the petitioner on 19.08.2008 and further written statement was also filed on 24.08.2011, after the plaint was amended. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C., to file additional written statement on the ground that there was already an earlier suit that was filed by the respondent in O.S.No.46 of 2008 and the said suit was dismissed. By oversight, this fact was not mentioned in the earlier written statement and therefore, permission was sought for to mention this fact by means of filing an additional written statement.

¶14

3.The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner ought to have mentioned the earlier suit that was

¶15

1/3

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2012

¶17

filed by the respondent in the original written statement and that the petitioner has not even filed the judgment in the earlier suit and therefore, the permission sought for by the petitioner to file additional written statement was rejected.

¶18

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below ought not to have insisted for the filing of pleadings in the earlier suit at the stage of deciding the application under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was only trying to bring the important fact, which will have a bearing in the case and the Court below should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement. Admittedly, the effect of the judgment in the earlier suit should have been decided in the course of trial. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the Court below requires interference of the Court.

¶19

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Court below has given specific reasons for dismissing the application and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same.

¶20

6.The additional written statement was sought to be filed by the petitioner only on the ground that there was an earlier suit between parties and the same got dismissed and the said fact was not mentioned in the earlier written statement and that the said fact will have a bearing while deciding in the present suit.

¶21

7.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner was not attempting to come up with a totally new case by filing additional written statement. The petitioner was only attempting to bring to the knowledge of the Court a fact, which is incline with the defence that was taken by the petitioner in the original written statement. The Court below ought to have allowed the application and permitted that petitioner to file additional written statement. Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, the same should have been decided in the course of trial and there was no requirement for the Court below to go into the merits even while deciding the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C.

¶22

8.In the considered view of this Court, the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore, the order of the Court below requires interference of this Court.

¶23

9.In the result, the fair and final order passed by the Court below dated 09.03.2012 in I.A.No.73 of 2012 in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is hereby, set aside and the additional written statement is directed to be taken on file. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Principal District Munsif Court, Nanguneri is directed to complete the proceedings in O.S.No.115 of 2007, within a period https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No

¶24

2/3

¶25

C.R.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2012

¶26

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

gns

¶31

¶32

The Principal District Munsif, Nanguneri.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-91693[F] dated 10/10/2019 )

¶34

C.R.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2012 04.10.2019

¶35

JMN(07.11.2019) 3P : 3C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

3/3

U.Arumugam v. Ramaiah Nadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Arumugam v. Ramaiah Nadar

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

Ponnambalam Vs Soundarapandian

R. Sivakumar Vs Muruganandam @ Kulandaivel

A. Periyasamy Vs P. Surendira Babu

Yasothai Vs Senthamarai

M.Vadivel Vs R.Nallasamy

N. Esakkimuthu Vs L. Gnanasekar