Additional written statement can be filed after commencement of trial - new plea can be raised in additional written statement.
Citation
Devendran & Others Versus P.V. Palani
Head Note
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Code Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 9 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment – Additional written statement – Title suit – Injunction – Adverse possession – Challenge regarding dismissal of application for filing additional written statement –
Court Held – Admitted fact that pleas by both parties to suit are same – No new plea sought to be raised by petitioners/Defendants in additional written statement – Petitioners omitted to raise plea of perfection of title by adverse possession in written statement – Omission made is technical and result of inadvertence by counsel of petitioners in preparing written statement – Plea sought to be raised in additional written statement is based on facts pleaded in original written statement – Party not to suffer out of mistake committed by Advocate – No other ground in Counter statement except that petitioners deliberately attempting to drag on proceedings and that plea to file additional written statement is belated – Finding by Trial Court that proposal to file written statement would change very nature of suit is baseless – For delay caused in filing written statement, Respondent to be compensated by pressing for cost – Concluded that, petition to be allowed to file proposed additional written statement by directing petitioners to pay cost to Respondent – Revision petition allowed.
Paras 16, 17
Cases Relied:
Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung.
B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh.
Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary.
L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Cases Referred:
Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 202.
Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussain Bhai Mulla Akberally and Others reported in (2009)15 Supreme Court cases 528.
Thiyagarajan Vs.Manivannanreported in 2007-1-L.W.429 (High Court of Madras)
Comparative Citations:
2016 (2) MWN(Civil) 351, 2016 (5) MLJ 109, 2016 (4) CTC 750,
Court Held – Admitted fact that pleas by both parties to suit are same – No new plea sought to be raised by petitioners/Defendants in additional written statement – Petitioners omitted to raise plea of perfection of title by adverse possession in written statement – Omission made is technical and result of inadvertence by counsel of petitioners in preparing written statement – Plea sought to be raised in additional written statement is based on facts pleaded in original written statement – Party not to suffer out of mistake committed by Advocate – No other ground in Counter statement except that petitioners deliberately attempting to drag on proceedings and that plea to file additional written statement is belated – Finding by Trial Court that proposal to file written statement would change very nature of suit is baseless – For delay caused in filing written statement, Respondent to be compensated by pressing for cost – Concluded that, petition to be allowed to file proposed additional written statement by directing petitioners to pay cost to Respondent – Revision petition allowed.
Paras 16, 17
Cases Relied:
Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung.
B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh.
Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary.
L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co.
Cases Referred:
Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 202.
Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussain Bhai Mulla Akberally and Others reported in (2009)15 Supreme Court cases 528.
Thiyagarajan Vs.Manivannanreported in 2007-1-L.W.429 (High Court of Madras)
Comparative Citations:
2016 (2) MWN(Civil) 351, 2016 (5) MLJ 109, 2016 (4) CTC 750,
Comments
Post a Comment