IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2100 OF 2011(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2011 IN IA 603/2011 IN OS.7/2006 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.HAMSAKUTTY, S/O.VALUTTY ALIAS KHADER, KUMBALAPANTHALIL HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M/S.FEDERAL BANK LTD., KALLADIKKODE BRANCH, KALLADIKKODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678596. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED RELATING TO THE GUIDELINES ON THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN I.A. NO.603 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.7 OF 2006 DATED 16.02.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.487 OF 2011 DATED 3.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2100 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 05th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Original Petition is filed in challenge of Ext.P2, order dated 16.02.2011 on I.A. No.603 of 2011 in O.S. No.7 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam. Learned Sub Judge declined to receive additional written statement taking up a contention raised by petitioner that in view of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme petitioner is entitled to get the loan amount waived. Learned Sub Judge held that request to receive additional written statement cannot be entertained. Learned counsel has contended that when O.P. No.487 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court it was directed that remedy of petitioner was to file an additional written statement. 2. I have gone through the judgment in O.P(C) No.487 of 2011. That Writ Petition was filed in challenge of an order passed rejecting the request of petitioner to direct respondent to waive the loan. This Court in the judgment dated 03.02.2011 held that the suit itself was decreed ex parte on 08.01.2010 and later the ex parte decree was set aside. Thereafter case was posted for trial in the list on 04.02.2011 when petitioner came with the said application. This court found no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the application. I do not find any observation in the O.P(C) No.2100 of 2011 -: 2 :- judgment in O.P(C) No.487 of 2011 that petitioner was permitted to file additional written statement. 3. Nor am I inclined to think, having regard to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure that petitioner could file any additional written statement. For, an additional written statement could be filed only in answer to a counter claim, or set off or when there is an amendment of the plaint or when the court requires a further statement to be made by the party concerned. None of those circumstances exist in this case. Hence question of filing an additional written statement did not arise. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original petition is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv