The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order admitting an additional written statement in a partition suit. The High Court held that admitting the statement caused no prejudice given the nature of the suit and dismissed the petition.
The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed; no costs awarded.
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 (MD) No.1334 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 08.08.2023 Pronounced on 13.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.5510 of 2022
Ravikumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.445 of 2021 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, dated 05.04.2022.
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R3 to R6 : No appearance
1/6
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022
O R D E R
This petition is preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.445/ 2021 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, dated 05.04.2022.
plaintiff for partition and to allot 1/9th share to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the above suit, the defendants 4 and 5 filed an application in I.A.No.445 of 2021 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 for receiving addition written statement for their share in the suit property under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The said application was allowed by the trial Court against which the present revision is preferred.
2/6
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022
taken by the petitioner that his father the 1st defendant executed a settlement deed, the respondents 1 and 2 and 5 & 6 without examining D.W.1 to D.W.5 filed the application to fill up the lacuna. The trial Court without considering the objection raised by the petitioner in the counter statement, erroneously allowed the application which was filed after a delay of 10 years. He would further submit that the respondents have not cross examined D.W.1 & D.W.2 inspite of several adjournments and the case is posted for defendants side further evidence. Therefore, the reception of additional written statement after commencement of trial cannot be accepted. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants 6 &7 would content that it is a suit for partition and the respondents are the legal heirs of one Aadhilakshmi who died on 26.05.1996. The suit properties are in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defedants 2 to 7 and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to 18/54 share in the suit properties. The trial Court after considering the above facts rightly allowed the application filed by the respondents.
3/6
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022
6.It is is suit for partition and now posted for defendant side further evidence. The respondents who are the defendants 6 & 7 in the suit has come out with an application to receive the additional written statement along with Court fee in respect of their share in the suit properties. In a suit for partition, all parties who are entitled for a share in the properties are necessary parties. Whether, the respondents are entitled for any share in the suit properties, to be decided at the time of trial. Moreover, it is settled law that in a suit for partition the defendants are also deemed to be plaintiff. Therefore, receiving the additional written statement along with Court fee not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Hence, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application which calls for no interference.
7.In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.12.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No
4/6
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022
Internet : Yes cp/vsn
To
The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
5/6
CRP (MD) No.1334 of 2022
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
cp/vsn
order made in C.R.P(MD)No.1334 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.5510 of 2022
13.12.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in allowing an application to admit an additional written statement filed by respondents in a partition suit despite objections and delay.
Whether receiving an additional written statement in a partition suit causes prejudice to the parties.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravikumar
Gengammal
Mahalakshmi
Usharani
Vijayarani
Guruvammal
K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
