At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
For the Petitioner : P. Valliappan, Advocate. For the Respondent : ----.
1. Anim ?adverting upon the memo order dated 19.8.2008 passed in I.A. No. 3835 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1081 of 2004 by the principal District Munsif Kallakurichi, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this civil revision petition, as stood exposited from the records, succinctly and precisely, pithily and briefly could be portrayed thus;
The revision petitioner as plaintiff
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
filed the suit O.S. No. 1081 of 2004 for injunction as against the defendants, Where upon D2 filed the written statement, issues were framed and the plaintiff also adduced evidence and closed his side, When the matter was posted for defendant?s evidence, the defendant also filed chief examination affidavit, However, thereafter I.A. No. 3835 of 2007 was filed in the said O.S. for filing additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9. The trial Court allowed the said I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focused on various grounds.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that he would be the last person to object for getting amendment of the written statement or for filing additional written statement before the commencement of trial. But in this case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different. The plaintiff adduced evidence and closed his side and thereafter on the defendants side the chief examination affidavit was filed for buttressing the pleas of the defendants. However, thereafter new pleas were sought to be introduced in the form of additional written statement and such a course cannot be entertained. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court.4. In the order of the lower Court, the revision petitioner?s objection is found recorded at page No.2 and from that what I could understand is that factually on the defendants? side chief examination affidavit was filed and cross-examination also was conducted by the plaintiff and thereafter the said I.A. was sought to be filed so as to buttress the version of the defendant before the Court. It would amount to putting the horse behind the cart. Evidence should follow the pleadings and not vice versa. It is a well settled proposition of law that any amount of evidence without pleadings should be eschewed. Since in this case the defendants adduced evidence without the backing of the pleading, as an after, thought, he has chosen to file such as an affidavit seeking permission to file additional statement so as to buttress the evidence given before the Court, In my opinion, the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is sound and it should be countenanced.5. The lower Court, without adverting to these vital points simply, as a matter of routine, allowed the I.A. for filing the additional written statement. In the original written statement, the settlement deed dated 173.1960 was denied, whereas, in the additional written statement the versions are such as though it was acted upon. After the major part of the trial was over, the defendants have chosen to take an antithetical stand in the additional written statement quite contrary to what they committed themselves in black and white in their earlier written statement. I would like to extract here under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. for ready reference.?Order 8 Rule 9 Subsequent pleadings ? No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set- off or counterclaim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.?6. It is crystal clear from the above that only on sound reasons, the Court could grant leave to file additional written statement. Here in view of the reasons set out above, absolutely there is no rhyme or reason for granting permission to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the said I.A. shall stand dismissed.7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs, Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
"(2009) 3 MLJ 959"