Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an agreement of sale dated 15.01.2005, claiming that the entire sale consideration was paid and possession was delivered. The respondents denied the execution of the agreement and contended that the plaintiff was a permissive occupant. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died, and his wife was brought on record as the fourth defendant, who filed a written statement on 19.10.2022 supporting the earlier written statement. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 07.10.2023. Subsequently, on 02.11.2023, the plaintiff filed an application (I.A. No. 5 of 2024) before the trial court seeking permission to file a reply statement, alleging that new pleas were raised in the written statement of the fourth defendant. The trial court dismissed the application by order dated 16.10.2024, observing that no new facts were introduced and the application was belated. The petitioner then filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court noted that the written statement merely reiterated the denial of the sale agreement and the plea of permissive possession, both of which had already been traversed in the plaint. As no new question of fact was raised, there was no necessity for a reply statement. Moreover, the written statement had been filed as early as 19.10.2022, and the plaintiff not only failed to seek reply statement at that time but also allowed her evidence to be closed. The belated application filed after evidence closure, without any justification, was held to be rightly dismissed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition with no costs, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Reply Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 9 - Application for filing reply statement was filed after plaintiff's evidence was closed, on the ground that the written statement of the newly added defendant introduced new pleas - Court found that the written statement merely denied execution of the sale agreement and claimed permissive possession, which were already contested by the plaintiff, thus no new question of fact was introduced. The application was also filed belatedly without any explanation for the delay. Held that the trial court rightly dismissed the application, and the revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff can be permitted to file a reply statement after the closure of evidence when the written statement does not raise any new question of fact and the application is filed without justification for delay
Final Decision
The civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial court's order dismissing the application for filing reply statement is upheld. No costs.
Law Points
- reply statement can be filed only when written statement introduces new question of fact
- belated application after closure of evidence without justification not maintainable
