BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/03/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.354 of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 R.Uma ... Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Vs. V.Rajalingam ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 15.12.2008 made in I.A.No.149 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Guhan for M/s.N.Krishnaveni ^ * * * * * :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is projected by the Civil Revision
Petitioner/respondent/defendant as against the order in I.A.No.149 of 2008 in
O.S.No.118 of 2004 dated 15.12.2008, passed by the learned District Judge,
Karur, in allowing the application filed by the respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying permission of the
trial Court to receive the reply statement.
2. The learned District Judge, Karur, while passing orders in I.A.No.149
of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2004 dated 15.12.2008, has inter alia observed that in
order to provide an opportunity to the respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff and also
to avoid certain confusions etc., has resultantly allowed the said application.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court
that the trial Court ought not to have received the reply statement filed after
lapse of two years after the additional written statement filed by the defendant
in the case and further, the trial Court should have taken note of the fact that
the reply statement has been filed only to fill up the lacuna pursuant to the
stand taken before this Court in C.R.P(MD)No.2080 of 2008 and moreover, the
trial Court should have taken note of the fact that on receipt of the reply
statement, the defendant’s plea of discharge of suit debts has been disputed and
thereby, the defendant’s right accrued because of the non-filing of reply
statement soon after the receipt of the additional written statement and in any
event, the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.149 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2004
dated 15.12.2008, is tainted with material irregularity and therefore, the same
has to be set aside to prevent aberration of justice and resultantly, the Civil
Revision Petition has to be allowed.
4. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made
by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and noticed the same.
5. It is to be noted that if a Court of law is satisfied that the reply
statement is to be allowed in a given case, then, the power of the Court in
allowing a party to file the said reply statement, is very wide based upon its
power of exercising judicial discretion, in the considered opinion of this
Court. As a matter of fact, a reply statement can be filed by a party to a
litigation with the leave of the Court. Admittedly, there is no time limit
prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code for filing of a reply statement by a
party. Of course, it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind in a proper
perspective after exercising its judicial discretion in allowing a reply
statement or refusing to receive the same based on overall assessment of the
facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion. At the time of
receiving the reply statement, the merits and demerits of the matters in issue
cannot be gone into by a Court of law, in the considered opinion of this Court.
However, this Court pertinently points out that, ‘if the desire is merely to
deny the averments in the written statement, then no reply is essential,
inasmuch as all the material facts alleged are put in issue’. But, if any reply
is filed, then, ‘the same is the proper place for meeting the defence by
confession and avoidance’, as opined by this Court. In fact, the law does not
compel a party to file a reply statement.
6. On a careful consideration of the contentions projected on the side of
the revision petitioner and after perusing the order of the trial Court passed
in I.A.No.149 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2004 dated 15.12.2008, this Court opines
that the same does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality and
in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is
hereby dismissed without costs to promote substantial cause of justice.
Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. It is open to
the Revision Petitioner to put forth legal and factual pleas in regard to the
merits of the matter at the time of the trial of the case and that too, when
P.W.1 has been examined in part and the main suit O.S.No.118 of 2004 on the file
of the learned District Judge, Karur, is in part-heard stage admittedly.
rsb
To
The District Judge, Karur.