Allowed

Mrs.K.Kalyanasundari, W/o.Shri Kalyanasundaram v. Mr.L.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Shri J.Loganathan

Madras HC20 Jan 2021A/3040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil suit for specific performance, the petitioner sought leave to file an Additional Written Statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The court found the objection regarding the correctness of the court fee paid made by the petitioner to be correct and necessary for adjudication, directing the registry to file the additional statement and list the matter.

What did the court decide?

The Additional Written Statement was directed to be taken on file on 11.02.2021, and the matter was listed for the same.

Mrs.K.Kalyanasundari, W/o.Shri Kalyanasundaram Vs… — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.3040 of 2020 in C.S.No.29 of 2020

¶2

A.No.3040 of 2020 in C.S.No.29 of 2020

¶3

R.PONGIAPPAN,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

2.This application has been filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of

¶6

Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant in C.S.No.29 of 2020, seeking to

¶7

grant leave to file the Additional Written Statement.

¶8

3.The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance

¶9

and alternatively he also prays for relief to direct the defendant to refund the advance amount. Immediately, after entering into appearance the petitioner/defendant herein filed a written statement wherein he strongly denied the averments found in the plaint. However, before framing the issues he filed this application for the relief to receive Additional Written Statement.

¶10

4.In the affidavit filed in support of the application, he would state

¶11

that the prayer sought for by the plaintiff to return advance amount with

¶12

interest is not admissible under law. Further, it was averred that the plaintiff https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶13

1/3

¶14

A.No.3040 of 2020 in C.S.No.29 of 2020

¶15

has paid less Court Fee and therefore it is necessary to check the correctness of the Court Fee which paid by the plaintiff by framing a preliminary issue. Since the said objection raised by the defendant is found correct or not, it should be decided only in accordance with law. Therefore, the Additional Written Statement is required to be taken on file for adjudication of the issue and receipt of the Additional Written Statement would no way cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and thereby petition is allowed. The Registry is directed to take the Additional Written Statement on file for framing issues, list the matter on 11.02.2021. 20.01.2021 mtl

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶17

2/3

¶18

A.No.3040 of 2020 in C.S.No.29 of 2020

¶19

R.PONGIAPPAN,J.

¶20

mtl

¶21

A.No.3040 of 2020
in C.S.No.29 of 2020

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

20.01.2021

¶24

3/3

Mrs.K.Kalyanasundari, W/o.Shri Kalyanasundaram v. Mr.L.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Shri J.Loganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.K.Kalyanasundari, W/o.Shri Kalyanasundaram v. Mr.L.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Shri J.Loganathan

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

Mrs.L.Gayathri Vs No Respondent

J.Neelakandan alias v.T.v.Ganesh and another Vs Sanjay Bhansali

S.Premavathy Vs S.Kothai Nayaki

Anaikar Abdul Shukoor Trust and 2 others Vs No Respondent

Anaikar Abdul Shukoor Trust and 2 others Vs No Respondent

Dr.S.K.Nayak Vs Parmjit Singh Marwah