High Court of Madras dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging an order denying an additional written statement in a partition suit. The Court upheld the lower court's dismissal, stating the petition was filed late to fill a lacuna.
Petitioner's prayer for permission to file additional written statement is denied via rejection of revision.
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.
CRP.PD.No.3960 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P (PD).No.3960 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.21941 of 2018
Tamilmani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Murugesan
2. Ellammal
3. T.Kumaravel
4. Diwakar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final orders dated 06.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.341 of 2018 in O.S.No.246 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge at Erode and allow the above C.R.P.
For Petitioner : M/s.N.Premalatha For Respondents : Notice Served (No Appearance) (for R-1 to R-3) : Mr.M.Karthik for Mr.I.C.Vasudevan (for R-4)
1/5
CRP.PD.No.3960 of 2018
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and final order
passed in I.A.No.341 of 2018 in O.S.No.246 of 2012 dated 06.10.2018 on
the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Erode, thereby dismissing
the petition seeking permission to file additional written statement.
respondent herein for partition and permanent injunction. On receipt of summons, the petitioner and the other defendants have engaged counsel and the first, third and fourth defendants have filed their written statement.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a memo to adopt the written statement filed by the third defendant. After closing the evidence on both sides, when the
suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed a petition seeking permission to file the additional written statement for the reason that his
signature was obtained by the third defendant and a memo was filed to adopt the written statement filed by the third defendant. It is also seen that
the petitioner failed to cross examine P.Ws. After a period of five years of
the suit and also when the suit was posted for arguments, the present
2/5
CRP.PD.No.3960 of 2018
petition came to be filed only to fill up the lacuna. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
09.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
kv
To
1. The II Additional Sub Judge, Erode.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
3/5
CRP.PD.No.3960 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
C.R.P (PD).No.3960 of 2018
4/5
CRP.PD.No.3960 of 2018
09.07.2021
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of an application for permission to file an additional written statement was arbitrary under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tamilmani
Murugesan
Ellammal
T.Kumaravel
Diwakar
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
