Dismissed¶32

N.Musthafa v. S.Jasmine

Madras HC16 Jun 2025CRP(MD)/1683/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC (Madurai Bench), M.Dhandapani J., 16.06.2025 — CRP(PD)(MD)No.1683/2021 dismissed; Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC; leave to file additional written statement refused; subsequent developments/fresh pleadings after close of plaintiff's evidence impermissible; plaintiff not party to defendant's dealings with plaintiff's father, not binding; allegations afterthought; O.S.No.37/2017, I.A.No.1/2020, Additional District Court (FTC) Tenkasi; Article 227 revision.

What did the court decide?

In the situation narrated by the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff is not a party and hence the said event is not binding on him. ¶31

N.Musthafa Vs S.Jasmine — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the fair and decreetal order dated 19.08.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.37 of 2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for leave to file an additional written statement ought to be set aside. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

The trial Court has rightly appreciated all these issues and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, and the same need not be interfered with.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In the situation narrated by the petitioner, the respondent/plaintiff is not a party and hence the said event is not binding on him.

¶31

Key takeaways

The application for leave to file an additional written statement, filed after completion of the plaintiff's side evidence, is impermissible.ratio¶31
All the allegations made in the interlocutory application appear to be an afterthought.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1683 of 2021, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (M.Dhandapani, J.), decided 16.06.2025 — dismissed. The petitioner (defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2017, a suit by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.15 lakhs) challenged the Additional District Court (FTC), Tenkasi's order dated 19.08.2021 rejecting I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC seeking leave to file an additional written statement pleading subsequent developments (an alleged compromise and payment of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the plaintiff's father, and a complaint in Crime No.579 of 2017). Held: the allegations in the interlocutory application appeared to be an afterthought; the respondent/plaintiff was not a party to the narrated dealings so the said event was not binding on him; and the application, filed after completion of the plaintiff's side evidence, was impermissible. The trial Court had rightly dismissed the application; no interference was called for, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.9078 of 2021) was closed.

¶1

C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1683 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1683 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9078 of 2021

¶7

N.Musthafa ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Jasmine ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition - filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.08.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.37 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, (FTC), Tenkasi.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and decreetal

¶14

order dated 19.08.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.37 of 2017 on the file

¶15

of the Additional District Court, (FTC), Tenkasi.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1683 of 2021

¶19

2.The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2017. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs. After completion of chief and cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC for filing additional written statement with regard to the subsequent developments happened in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing suit, there was a discussion between the petitioner/defendant and the plaintiff's father with regard to loan transaction. Apart from that the plaintiff's father entered into compromise with the petitioner requesting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs to him and that amount was paid to the plaintiff's father. Further, he would submit that the Advocate appeared on behalf of the plaintiff failed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff's father. In this regard, a complaint was also preferred by the petitioner before the Law Enforcing Agency in Crime No.579 of 2017. However, the petitioner failed to intimate

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1683 of 2021

¶24

all these things to the learned counsel appearing on his behalf. Hence, the petitioner seeks to file an additional written statement by enclosing all these facts. However, the trial Court has rejected the same. Hence, he filed the present petition.

¶25

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the subsequent developments happened in between the petitioner and the plaintiff's father will not be binding on the plaintiff. Further, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application are only hearsay and on that basis alone, the written statement is sought to be filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC and the same shall not be accepted.

¶26

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶27

6.Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC mandates that 'no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1683 of 2021

¶31

such terms as the Court thinks fit. In the present case, all the the allegations made in the interlocutory application appear to be an afterthought. Further, in the situation narrated by the petitioner, the respondent /plaintiff is not party and hence, the said that event is not binding on him. It is also to be noted that the present application is filed after completion of plaintiff's side evidence and the same is impermissible. The trial Court has rightly appreciated all these issues and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and the same need not be interfered with.

¶32

7.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

16.06.2025

¶34

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1683 of 2021