BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.621 of 2008 and M.P(MD). No.1 of 2008 The Venkadampatti Panchayat Represented through its Executive Authority, Venkadampatti Panchayat Office, Venkadampatti Post, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner vs. J.Innasimuthu ... Respondent PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.328 of 2007 in O.S.No.154 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy for Mrs.V.Chellammal ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.Arumugam * * * * * :JUDGMENT
The revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit challenging the
rejection of the order passed in I.S. No.328 of 2007 in O.S. No.154 of 2003
whereby the Court below has rejected the request of the petitioner to file the
additional written statement.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the notice
dated 03.06.2008 issued by the petitioner is to be declared as null and void.
The petitioner herein has issued a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Act, 1905 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff has allegedly
encroached the panchayat road and put up construction. Hence challenging the
same the suit has been laid by the respondent. The written statement has been
filed by the respondent on 18.11.2003. For the better appreciation of the facts
of the case, the written statement filed originally is extracted hereunder:
(1) The suit is not maintainable in law and facts. Suit is not
maintainable as prayed for
(2) The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of party,
since the competent person has not been made as a party.
Therefore the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with
cost.
3. A perusal of the said written statement would show the total non-
application of mind and the careless manner in which the written statement has
been filed. Thereafter the present application has been filed seeking
permission to file additional written statement by placing all the facts
alongwith the additional written statement was filed indicating all the facts
and thereby praying to dismiss the suit.
4. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the
reasons assigned for receiving the additional written statement cannot be
accepted. The Court observed that the application has been filed belately and
the reason assigned that due to the burden of work and the mistake committed by
the earlier counsel cannot be accepted. The Trial court has also held that
allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff. Hence the Trial Court
has dismissed the said application.
5. On a perusal of the written statement it is clear that there is no
specific denial of the averments made in the plaint. The entire written
statement is devoid of any fact or particulars. In the present case, the suit
is filed for declaration that the notice issued by the petitioner to remove the
encroachment as null and void. Therefore, the entire issue will have to be
adjudicated while deciding the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that in view of the specific denial, the same would amount to
accepting the allegation made in the plaint and therefore under those
circumstances allowing the application for additional written statement would
affect the interest of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that
in view of the fact that no particulars have given in the earlier written
statement the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna by filing
additional written statement which in fact is more than the original written
statement.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment
reported in 1998 3 MLJ 466 (N.Srinivasan vs. Muthammal), AIR 1976 Madras 302
(Murthi Gounder vs. Karuppanna), 1977 SCC 680 (M/s.Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills
Co. Ltd. and another vs. M/s.Ladh Ram & Co.) to contend that the admission made
in the written statement cannot be allowed to be changed by way of an additional
written statement. On a reading of the above said judgment it is clear that in
the original written statement, a specific stand was taken by the defendant in
those cases and thereafter a contrary stand was ought to be taken. Therefore
the Hon’ble High court in those cases was pleased to hold that a benefit that
has endured to a party cannot be taken away. Therefore on a reading of a said
judgments this Court is of the opinion that they are not applicable to the facts
of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
reported in 2007 5 CTC 722 (Muthuraman vs. Muthukumaran) and contended that the
object of filing additional written statement is to supply what might have been
omitted in the written stated filed in the first instance. The learned counsel
also submitted that the additional written statement should be allowed if they
are relevant to prove the facts placed before the Court.
7. Similarly, the learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment
reported in 2007 1 Law Weekly 429 (Thiyagarajan vs. Manivannan) wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has held that even after the framing of the issue and when
the suit is on trial stage a application for additional written statement can be
entertained. The Hon’ble High Court in that case has held that the additional
written statement can be allowed liberally since why to adjudicate the matter
finally and completely. On a perusal of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place all the
facts pleaded in the additional written statement. Therefore this Court is of
the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the same
is allowed.
8. However as mentioned above, the perusal of the original written
statement would clearly show the manner in which the proceedings have been
conducted by the petitioner who is discharging public duties. Hence considering
the above said facts while exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner
this Court is constrained to award cost. Accordingly the revision is allowed on
condition the petitioner pays Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the
respondent counsel within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. It is also made clear that in view of the order passed in
the revision the respondent is permitted to file reply statement or an
application for amendment if so advised. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
cs
To
The Additional District Munsif Court,
Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District.