Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision petition filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his application for leave to file an additional written statement in a suit for possession. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.147 of 2017 seeking delivery of possession of the suit property, claiming that the defendant executed a sale agreement and a general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff's wife, and later a sale deed was executed by the power agent. The defendant filed a written statement in 2018, alleging that the documents were executed as security for a loan. In 2023, the defendant sought to file an additional written statement to clarify that the sale deed was not supported by consideration and that the plaintiff had not paid the sale consideration. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that issues had already been framed. The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application without considering the merits. The Court emphasized that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC allows additional pleadings with leave of the court, and the court should adopt a liberal approach to ensure complete adjudication. The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the defendant to file the additional written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Leave to file additional written statement - The Trial Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that issues were framed, without considering the merits of the proposed additional pleadings - Held that the Court should adopt a liberal approach and allow additional written statement if it does not cause prejudice to the plaintiff and is necessary for just adjudication (Paras 8-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application for leave to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC on the ground that issues had already been framed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order dated June 13, 2023, and allowed I.A.No.3 of 2023 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the plaintiff/respondent within two weeks. The Trial Court was directed to receive the additional written statement and proceed with the suit.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC
- liberal approach to amendments
- additional written statement
- prejudice test
- just adjudication
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 319
Mr.I.Pragadeesh for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, Mr.C.Ramaraj
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition against dismissal of application for leave to file additional written statement
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/defendant sought to set aside the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A.No.3 of 2023 and allow the additional written statement
Filing Reason
The Trial Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that issues were framed, without considering the merits of the proposed additional pleadings
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.3 of 2023 on June 13, 2023
Issues
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application for leave to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC on the ground that issues had already been framed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the additional written statement was necessary to clarify that the sale deed was not supported by consideration and that the plaintiff had not paid the sale consideration, and that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application without considering the merits.
Respondent argued that the application was filed belatedly after issues were framed and that allowing it would cause prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits additional pleadings with leave of the court, and the court should adopt a liberal approach to allow additional written statement if it does not cause prejudice to the plaintiff and is necessary for just adjudication. The mere fact that issues have been framed is not a ground to reject the application.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that issues were framed, without considering the merits of the proposed additional pleadings.
The Court should adopt a liberal approach and allow additional written statement if it does not cause prejudice to the plaintiff and is necessary for just adjudication.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.147 of 2017 in Sub Court, Perundurai in August 2017. The defendant filed written statement on March 5, 2018. Issues were framed. On January 10, 2023, the defendant filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC for leave to file additional written statement. The Trial Court dismissed the application on June 13, 2023. The defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VIII Rule 9
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
