- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
H. Ramachandra Rao v. A. Mohideen
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in December 1990. The petitioner, defendant in the suit, filed a written statement in July 1992. After the plaintiff closed their evidence, the petitioner sought to file an additional written statement in March 1999 when the case was posted for defence witnesses. The lower court dismissed this application on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage without any explanation for the delay. The petitioner challenged this dismissal via a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing leave to file an additional written statement at a belated stage of the suit.
- Under what circumstances leave to file an additional written statement can be granted under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner argued that after entering into the agreement for sale, they had invested substantial amounts in constructing a multi-storeyed building on the property, which would make granting specific performance inequitable.
- The petitioner sought to raise this contention through an additional written statement at a late stage in the proceedings.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order 8, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure | Requirement of leave of the court before filing any pleading subsequent to the written statement except for defence to set-off or counter-claim. | The court applied this provision to hold that permission must be sought and granted only on showing sufficient cause and reasons for delay in filing additional pleadings. |
| A.N. Saha on Code of Civil Procedure, 5th Ed. | Commentary emphasizing the necessity of explaining why the plea was not raised earlier and providing the opposing party opportunity to respond. | The court relied on this commentary to stress that the petitioner failed to provide reasons for the delay, justifying rejection of the application. |
| AIR 1958 Madras 383, Nanjan v. Selai | Procedure and conditions for admitting an additional written statement, including filing a petition with reasons and allowing opposition. | The court followed this precedent to confirm that the petitioner did not comply with procedural requirements, and thus the lower court's rejection was appropriate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the application under the framework of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that a party must obtain leave of the court to file pleadings subsequent to the written statement. The petitioner was required to explain why the new contention was not raised earlier and to show sufficient cause for the delay. The affidavit supporting the application failed to provide any reason for the seven-year delay since the original written statement. The court also considered the stage of the suit, noting that the plaintiff's evidence had been closed and allowing fresh pleadings would cause hardship and necessitate reopening the case. The court emphasized that leave is discretionary and must be exercised considering the conduct of the party, delay, stage of litigation, and potential prejudice to the opposing party. Given these factors, the court found the lower court's refusal to grant leave justified and proper.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
The court upheld the lower court's discretion in refusing to permit the filing of an additional written statement at a belated stage without sufficient explanation. The direct effect is that the petitioner is not allowed to raise the new contention at this stage of the suit. No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces the settled legal principle that leave to file additional pleadings must be justified by adequate reasons and exercised with regard to fairness and procedural propriety.
Defendant in O.S 7118 of 1996 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras is the revision petitioner.
2. Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance in December 1990 and petitioner filed written statement in July. 1992. Thereafter, the case was included in the list and plaintiff's evidence was also closed. When the case was posted for defence witnesses, an application was filed to receive additional written statement in March, 1999. By the impugned order, lower Court dismissed that application. Lower court refused to grant leave holding that the Same is filed at belated stage and no reason is given why this contention could not be raised, in the earlier written statement. The same is under challenge in this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. I heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure reads thus,
“No pleading 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 such terms as the Courts 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 for presenting the same.”
5. A.N Saha on the Code of Civil Procedure, 5th edition (First Volume), commenting on Order VIII Rule 9 has said thus,
“…The rale requires leave of the Court before any party can make a further pleading after written statement has been filed. Where a defendant intends to file additional written statement, he must file an application showing the circumstances as to why he failed to raise the plea in the original written statement, and the other party must be given opportunity to meet the motion..”
6. As early as in AIR 1958 Madras 383 (Nanjan v. Selai), this Court has held thus,
“If the party wants to file an additional written statement, he has to file a petition stating the reason why he failed to say these things in the original written statement, and what ‘excuse there is for allowing him to file an additional written statement at that stage. Then the other side has to be given an opportunity to oppose the petition and contend that such additional written statement should not be entertained at that stage. Then the Court has to give its decision as to whether the additional written statement is to be admitted or not.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In the affidavit in support of the application seeking leave, no reason is given why the contention now sought to be raised was not taken earlier. In the affidavit in support of the application it is alleged that defendant after the agreement for sale has put up multi-storeyed construction in the property and having invested huge amounts on the building, it will be inequitable for Court to grant specific relief. He only said that he has invested huge amounts for putting up the construction. When the affidavit does not disclose any reason for not taking this defence earlier court was justified in rejecting the application. It is also settled law that while granting leave, Court will have to consider the stage of the suit, delay on the part of party on seeking leave and how far the opposite party will be put to hardship if leave is granted. 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 now here stated in the affidavit.
8. 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.
9. In this case, lower court has considered all the facts and circumstances and rightly rejected the application under Order VIII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.-
10. In the result, the revision is without any merit and I dismiss the revision petition. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P No. 13024 of 1999 is also dismissed. RR/VCS
Alert