ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred against :the fair and decretal order dated 17.11.2000 made in I.A.807 of 2000 in O.S 1089 of 1986 in and by which, the trial Court permitted the respondents herein to file its additional written statement in the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property either by demolition or otherwise.
2. In the plaint, it is claimed that the suit property is a Natam poramboke and that the petitioner is in possession of the said premises for more than 32 years. Originally a written statement was filed by the respondent on 6.11.1986 contending that the petitioner had put certain constructions over municipal
drainage causing damages to the same and also obstructing free flow of sewage water. It is specifically contended that inspite of the directions of the respondent to the plaintiff to remove the unauthorised constructions put up in the respondent’s property, the petitioner without complying with the said directions of the respondent had approached the Civil Court. It is also claimed that by virtue of the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner, the drainage could not be repaired immediately which would only result in spread of diseases in that locality which ultimately would affect the public health.
3. It is unfortunate that the suit which was filed in the year 1986 riped for hearing only in the month of October, 2000 when P.W.1 was examined. During the course of his examination, the petitioner admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he is in possession of the suit property for more than 32 years. P.W.1 has also denied the suggestion that the suit property belonged to the respondent as per revenue records and that he is only a trespasser. It was at that stage, the respondent came forward with the present application for filing an additional written statement. A perusal of the additional written statement shows that the respondent wanted to specify the suit schedule property with particular reference to the survey numbers and the purpose intended for the utilisation of the said property. In the application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of C.P.C., it is stated that by mistake the various details concerned in the additional written statement should not be referred to in the original written statement and since the absence of those particulars would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent, the respondent should be permitted to file the additional written statement. The Court below has allowed the said application by permitting the respondent to file an additional written statement.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if at all the petitioner wanted to bring forth the new facts, it could at best do only by seeking an amendment to the original statement and the respondent cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement and thereby permit him to put forth a new case than what was pleaded in the original written statement. The learned counsel would rely upon Milind Saran Kothiwal v. Vinai Kumar Gupta, , State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ikbal and others, and Pratap Kumar Rath and others v. Board of Secondary Education and others, . As far as the judgment reported in Milind Saran Kothiwal v. Vinai Kumar Gupta, , is concerned, that was a case where a minor on attaining majority wanted to file a fresh written statement superceding the original statement filed by her guardian and it was, in those circumstances, the learned Judge was of the view that at best the minor could seek for amendment of the original statement and the minor cannot be permitted to file a fresh statement superceding whatever contentions raised by the guardian in the original written statement. The very fact that the minor wanted to file a fresh written statement, and thereby supersede the contentions raised in the original written statement filed by the guardian would go to show that the minor wanted to take diametrically a different stand than what was taken in the original statement filed by the guardian. In such circumstances as held by the learned
Judge though minor can be permitted to seek for an amendment to the original statement, he cannot be permitted to plead a new case than what was originally pleaded in the written statement There can be no dispute with the proposition of law stated by the learned Judge but the same is not the case in the case on hand and therefore the said judgment is not applicable here. In the other two judgments cited by the learned counsel, it is held that by filing an additional written statement, inconsistent pleas cannot be permitted to be raised. Hence in the circumstance as stated by me earlier, in the case on hand, the respondent only attempted to reinforce what has been stated in the original written statement by furnishing the details about the suit schedule property which unfortunately, the petitioner has omitted to mention in his plaint which he ought to have done. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondent was attempting to plead a different case than what has been pleaded in the written original statement. Therefore none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will have any application to the case on hand.
5. The learned counsel then contended that under Order 14 (1) of C.P.C., when issues have been framed, and trial had commenced, the permission now granted by the Court below would only obstruct further progress of the suit which was of the year 1986. When parties are required to raise their respective pleas, so as to later on establish with sufficient materials both documentary as well as oral in support of those pleas raised, when the petitioner has failed to come forward with the details of the suit schedule properties and when the respondent who is in possession of those particulars has come forward to furnish those particulars in its additional written statement, in the interests of justice, the respondent should be permitted to raise those pleas so as to enable him to establish those particulars with sufficient material evidence available with it. In those circumstances, the action of the Court below in permitting the respondent to file the additional written statement cannot be found fault with. As found by me earlier, the respondent by filing the additional written statement has not come forward with a new case except furnishing the details about the suit schedule property. Therefore by permitting the respondent to file the additional written statement, it is not going to in any way dislodge the issues that are to be tried in the suit. Therefore the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not merit any consideration. In such circumstances, there being no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below, there is no scope for interfering with the said order in this revision.
6. In any event, since the suit is of the year 1986, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously by framing such additional issues that may be required for determination in accordance with law. The suit shall be disposed of preferably within three months from this date i.e., on or before 5th April, 2001. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the C.M.P. is closed. Whatever observations made in this revision will have no bearing on the disposal of the suit on merits.