IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:12.01.2009
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(PD).1849 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
1. Natarajan
2. Mallika ... Petitioners
vs.
Manickam .. Respondent
This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettur in I.A.No.882 of 2007 in O.S.No.143 of 2003.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Shivakumaran
ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettur in I.A.No.882 of 2007 in O.S.No.143 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Concisely and compendiously, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.143 of 2003 seeking the following reliefs:
m/ gpujpthjpnah. mth; jk; Ml;fnsh jhth brhj;jpy; gpuntrpj;J fl;olk; VJk; fl;lf;TlhJ vd epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpj;Jk;;
M/ jhth bryt[fis thjpfSf;F gpujpthjp tH’;fpl ntz;Lk;
The respondent filed the written statement. Thereupon, the petitioners filed I.A.No.882 of 2007 seeking permission to file a reply statement to the written statement by way of explaining certain facts and also the facts about the boundaries involved in the matter. However, the lower court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the boundaries , which are found delineated in the defendant’s documents would not bind the plaintiffs; the document discloses that somebody’s else’s property is there on the eastern boundary of the plaintiffs property; if without such reply statement, the plaintiff goes to trial, naturally objection would be raised during trial to the effect that the plaintiff’s contention was not borne by the pleadings and as such, the lower court was not justified in dismissing the said I.A.
5. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit that whatever be the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs as against the document, they could very well put forth the same during the cross examination of the defendant and the defendant’s witness and for which, no reply statement is required.
6. I am of the considered opinion that the said reply statement sought to be filed is having connection with the factual aspects involved in it and more specifically the boundaries. Hence, in such circumstances permitting the petitioner to file the reply statement delineating the stand of the plaintiffs would in no way prejudice the case of the defendant, if the defendant is having a good case of his own to put forth before the lower Court.
G.RAJASURIA,J
vj2
7. Hence, in these circumstances, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the revision is allowed permitting the petitioners to file the reply statement. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2 12.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet :Yes To The District Munsif, Mettur C.R.P.(PD).1849 of 2008