Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V. Manisekaran
  • (Respondent died) Steps not yet taken
Judges
  • R. Banumathi, J.
Acts
  • Order 8, Rule 9 of code of Civil Procedure.
  • Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C8.
  • Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V. Manisekaran
  • (Respondent died) Steps not yet taken
Judges
  • R. Banumathi, J.
Acts
  • Order 8, Rule 9 of code of Civil Procedure.
  • Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C8.
  • Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This Revision arises from an order dated 9.10.2000 of the Second Additional District Munsif (in-charge of I Additional District Munsif), Thirukovilur, in I.A. No. 533 of 2000 in O.S. No. 998 of 1991. The impugned order allowed an application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. permitting reception of an additional written statement on payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. The Plaintiffs (the Revision Petitioners) are three children (daughters and a son) of D1 Sadaiyandi. They sued to cancel a Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 executed by D1 in favour of D2, alleging that the recitals concerning consideration and antecedent debts were false and that the promissory note and other debts mentioned were non-existent; the Plaintiffs sought cancellation of the Sale Deed and partition of the suit properties.

The Second Defendant (D2) had earlier filed a written statement denying the Plaintiffs' case and asserting that D1 had purchased the property in the name of his wife Mangai Ammal, that the patta remained in D1's name and that D1 sold the property to D2 on 27.11.1986 for discharging antecedent debts for consideration of Rs. 13,000/-. During trial, after five Plaintiff witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, D2 filed I.A. No. 533 of 2000 seeking leave under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. to file an additional written statement alleging newly traced facts — specifically an Agreement of Sale between D1 and Annapoorani Ammal dated 11.6.1978 (vendor received Rs. 5,000 and balance Rs. 40 to be paid within four months) and related events in June 1978 — which D2 said had been omitted earlier.

The Plaintiffs opposed the application, contending that the additional pleading was contradictory to earlier pleadings, that a pre-suit notice did not mention such an agreement, and that the application was highly belated and prejudicial because five Plaintiff witnesses had already been examined. The trial Court allowed the application on the basis that parties should be afforded adequate opportunity, found no inconsistency between earlier and new pleas, and received the additional written statement. The Plaintiffs then preferred this Revision challenging that order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the additional written statement should have been received at the stage when the Plaintiffs' evidence (five witnesses) had been nearly completed, i.e., whether the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. is barred by delay and stage of trial.
  2. Whether the impugned order allowing reception of the additional written statement suffers from any material irregularity warranting interference by the Revisional Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs / Revision Petitioner's Arguments

  • The additional written statement was belatedly filed after the trial had commenced and after five Plaintiff witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.
  • Allowing the additional written statement at that stage caused prejudice to the Plaintiffs because they would be deprived of opportunity to meet the new facts and pleadings and their evidence had already been adduced.
  • The application is a belated attempt to fill lacunae in the Defendant's case and contradicts earlier pleadings and pre-suit communications which did not mention the alleged Agreement of Sale.
  • The trial court erred in receiving the additional written statement and the order should be set aside.

Second Defendant's / Respondent's Arguments

  • The second Defendant sought leave under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. to file an additional written statement because an Agreement of Sale between D1 and Annapoorani Ammal was only recently traced and had been omitted earlier.
  • The additional pleading explained a chain of transactions and facts relevant to ownership and antecedent dealings (an Agreement of Sale dated 11.6.1978 and subsequent payment on 16.6.1978), which were material to the defence.
  • Earlier written statement and other defences asserted sale to D2 for valid consideration and discharge of antecedent debts; the additional pleading was put forward to record matters newly discovered and to complete the defence record.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
H. Ramachandra Rao v. A. Mohideen, 2000 1 L.W. 420 Principle that when the entire evidence of the Plaintiff is over, fresh pleadings under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. cannot be allowed; discretion to permit additional pleadings depends on conduct, stage of litigation, delay, and prejudice/hardship to the opposite party. The Court relied on and applied this authority to hold that the additional written statement sought to be received nearly seven years after the first written statement and after Plaintiffs' evidence was nearly complete could not be permitted; it supported setting aside the trial Court's order allowing the additional written statement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in a series of fact-specific and legal steps grounded in the stage of the litigation and the law of pleadings:

  1. The Court noted the factual posture: the Plaintiffs had examined and cross-examined five witnesses; the first written statement by the Defendant was filed on 8.3.1993; the application for leave to file an additional written statement (I.A. No. 533 of 2000) was filed nearly seven years later when the Plaintiffs' evidence was nearly complete.
  2. The Court explained the object of pleadings — to ensure that the Court and parties are fully informed of the case before trial so that trial proceeds within a well-defined channel. New facts introduced after the Plaintiff's evidence risks diverting the trial and depriving the Plaintiff of an opportunity to meet the new defence by adducing corresponding evidence.
  3. The Court observed that allowing fresh pleadings at the stage when the Plaintiffs' evidence was closed would cause prejudice because the Plaintiffs would lack a remedy to adduce proper evidence to meet the new pleadings.
  4. The learned District Munsif had allowed the application on the basis that parties should be afforded adequate opportunity and found no inconsistency between pleadings; however, the Revisional Court found this approach failed to sufficiently account for the stage of litigation, the seven-year delay since the first written statement, and the hardship to the Plaintiffs.
  5. The Court relied on the cited precedent (H. Ramachandra Rao v. A. Mohideen) which held that permitting fresh pleadings after the plaintiff's evidence is complete will ordinarily cause hardship and that a party seeking leave must satisfactorily explain why such a contention was not raised earlier; discretion must consider conduct, stage, delay and prejudice.
  6. Applying those principles to the present facts, the Court found the reason in the affidavit (that the Agreement of Sale was not traceable earlier) unconvincing and concluded the lower Court erred in allowing the additional written statement without adequate consideration of delay and prejudice. The impugned order was therefore found to suffer from material irregularity.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.10.2000 permitting reception of the additional written statement is set aside.

Implications (direct effects on the parties):

  • The trial Court's order in I.A. No. 533 of 2000 in O.S. No. 998 of 1991 is quashed and set aside.
  • The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No. 998 of 1991 expeditiously in accordance with law.
  • There is no order as to costs in the Revisional Court; C.M.P. No. 18297 of 2000 is closed.

Broader implications: The Court applied established principles governing leave to file additional pleadings under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. in light of the stage of litigation, delay and prejudice. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it applies existing precedent and emphasizes that discretionary leave under Order VIII, Rule 9 must consider conduct, delay and hardship to the opposite party.

VCJ/VCS
Show full summary ...

    Chandra 2. Chinnadurai 3. Poongavanam Petitioners v. Ranganathan

    This Revision arises out of the Order of Second Additional District Munsif (incharge of I Additional District Munsif), Thirukovilur in I.A No. 533 of 2000 in O.S No. 998 of 1991 dated 9.10.2000 allowing the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- thereby ordering receipt of additional written statement. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

    2. O.S No. 998 of 1991: — Plaintiffs are daughters and son of D1 Sadaiyandi. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit to cancel the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 executed by D1 in favour of D2. According to the Plaintiffs, the recitals in the said Sale Deed relating to the consideration and antecedent debts are not true. The promissory note and the other debts mentioned there on are not existing debts and the recitals have been incorporated to show as if the Sale Deed has been executed for consideration. Alleging that the Sale Deed is not binding on them and seeking to cancel the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming their share in the suit properties.

    3. The Second Defendant filed the written statement contending that D1 had purchased the property in the name of his wife Mangai Ammal. D1 sold the said property to D2 under the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 for discharging the antecedent debts. Though the Sale Deed was obtained in the name of Mangai Ammal, the patta continues to be in the name of D1 and D1 was in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying kists etc. The first Defendant had executed Mortgage Deed dated 28.1.1986 to one Subramaniam for meeting the expenses of maintaining the minors-Plaintiffs and for discharging other antecedent debts. D1 had sold the property to the second Defendant for valid and binding consideration of Rs. 13,000/- by the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 The Plaintiffs continue to be under the care and custody of the first Defendant. When D1 is alive, the maternal uncle cannot be the lawful guardian for the Plaintiffs. The Sale Deed executed by D1 for meeting the family expenses and for discharging the antecedent debts, is binding upon the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs cannot seek for partition without setting aside the Sale Deed.

    4. The trial commenced. Onbehalf of the Plaintiffs, five witnesses had been examined and cross examined. At that stage, D2 has filed I.A No. 533 of 2000 for filing the additional written statement. According to the second Defendant, only recently, he was able to trace out an Agreement of Sale between the first Defendant and Annapoorani Animal wherein the vendor Annapoorani Ammal had received consideration of Rs. 5000/- from D1 and agreed to receive the balance consideration of Rs. 40/- within four months i.e Between 11.6.1978 and 11-12-1978 and agreed to get the Sale Deed. Thereafter, on 16.6.1978, D1 paid Rs. 40/- to Annapoorani Ammal and she has agreed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of D1. According to the second Defendant, the same had been omitted to be pleaded earlier in the written statement. Hence, D2 has filed this application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C praying to receive the additional written statement.

    5. Resisting the application, the Plaintiffs have filed elaborate counter statement contending that the pleadings earlier put forth in the written statement and the pleadings in the additional written statement are contradictory. It is further alleged that there was pre-suit notice on 7.8.1990 wherein D2 and his brother had sent reply and in the reply also, the second Defendant had not stated anything about the Agreement of Sale (dated 11.6.1976) between Annapoorani Ammal and D1.

    6. Denying any such Agreement of Sale between Annapoorani Ammal and D1, the Plaintiffs have filed the counter statement alleging that the application had been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Since on behalf of the Plaintiffs five witnesses had been examined and cross examined, the application filed at that stage to receive the additional written statement is highly belated and cannot be entertained.

    7. Upon consideration of the averments in the affidavit and in the counter statement, the learned District Munsif found that adequate opportunity is to be afforded to both parties and they are to be heard in full. Finding that pleadings necessary for determination of the issue is to be accepted, the learned District Munsif held that there is no inconsistency between the earlier plea and the new plea and on those findings allowed the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C

    8. Aggrieved over the allowing of the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the additional written statement had been belatedly filed after the trial had commenced. It is submitted that when five witnesses had been examined and cross examined onbehalf of the Plaintiffs, the trial court was not justified in receiving the additional written statement after commencement of the trial. It is further contended that by allowing the petition to file additional written statement, much prejudice had been caused to the Plaintiffs and the evidence adduced and seeks to set aside the impugned order.

    9. The short point falling for consideration is whether the additional written statement is not to be received on the ground of delay and whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity warranting interference.

    10. Admittedly, on behalf of the Plaintiffs five witnesses had been examined and cross examined. At that stage, application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C has been filed to receive the additional written statement. Earlier, the written statement had been filed on 8.3.1993 I.A No. 309 of 2000 was filed to implead Annapoorani Ammal as the party to the suit for which, the second Defendant has filed the counter. In the counter statement, the second Defendant had alleged that vendor Annapoorani Ammal is a necessary party. If really, there had been any such Agreement of Sale on 11.6.1998 between Annapoorani Ammal and D1, the second Defendant would have stated about the same; but that was not to be so.

    11. The application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C had been filed belatedly. As stated earlier, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, five witnesses had been examined and cross examined. At that stage, nearly seven years after the filing of the written statement, the second Defendant had filed I.A No. 533 of 2000 under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C to receive additional written statement. When the evidence on the side of the Plaintiffs had nearly completed, the second Defendant was not justified in filing the application to receive the additional written statement. If the additional written statement is entertained at this stage, the Plaintiffs would be deprived of the opportunity in meeting the facts and pleadings put forth in the additional written statement.

    12. The object of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the respective parties, should fully know of the case before the parties go in for trial, so that, the trial may proceed in that well defined channel. Now, by putting forth new set of facts, after the Plaintiffs evidence is closed, the Defendants are only attempting to divert the process of trial. If the application is allowed, there would be no remedy to the Plaintiff to adduce proper evidence, thereby, meeting the defence plea set forth.

    13. In a similar case, where evidence of Plaintiffs was over, where the application was filed under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C to receive additional written statement, that application was dismissed by the lower Court which was confirmed by this Court in the decision reported in 2000 1 L.W 420 (H. Ramachandra Rao v. A. Mohideen) holding that when the entire evidence of Plaintiff was over, fresh pleadings under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C cannot be allowed. Justice S.S Subramani has held thus: —

    “In this case, entire evidence of Plaintiff is over. If fresh pleadings are allowed to take place. Plaintiff will be put to hardship and entire case will have to be reopened. First written statement was filed in the year 1992 and it was seven years after leave is sought for to file additional written statement. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is nowhere stated in the affidavit. Petitioner cannot contend or insist that Court must receive additional pleadings as of right. Permission has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9 of code of Civil Procedure. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion is to be exercised depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In all such cases, party who seeks leave has to explain as to why this contention was not raised in the earlier pleadings. While exercising discretion, the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of the litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship etc.”

    The above observation squarely applies to the case in hand where the Defendant has filed the additional written statement nearly seven years after the filing of the earlier written statement.

    14. The stage when the Plaintiffs evidence has been closed, the second Defendant is not justified in filing the application to receive additional written statement. The reason stated in the affidavit that the Agreement of Sale was not traceable earlier is not convincing. The lower Court has not taken note of the stage of the litigation and the delay that has occasioned and the hardship to which the Plaintiffs would be subjected. The impugned order suffers from material irregularity and is to be set aside.

    15. Therefore, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned Order of the Second Additional District Munsif (in-charge of I Additional District Munsif), Thirukovilur in I.A No. 533 of 2000 in O.S No. 998 of 1991 dated 9.10.2000 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose the suit in O.S No. 998 of 1991 expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P No. 18297 of 2000 is closed.

    VCJ/VCS

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Chandra 2. Chinnadurai 3. Poongavanam Petitioners v. Ranganathan
    (Jul 29, 2005)