IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-04-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.4185 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 N.Natarajan .. Petitioner. Versus K.Anandakumar .. Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.68 of 2009, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 3.8.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram For Respondent: Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh O R D E R This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 3.8.2009, made in I.A.No.68 of 2009, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. 2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition had filed the suit, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, praying for a decree, to declare the compromise final decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on 29.10.1974, in I.A.No.323 of 1974, in O.S.No.65 of 1971, in respect of the property mentioned in item No.2, in Part-A of plaint schedule, in Rank No.2 of the final decree, as invalid, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and that it is not binding on the petitioner and his successors, and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, the respondent herein and his successors from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by the plaintiff and his legal heirs. 3. While so, the respondent had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.68 of 2009, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, praying that the trial Court would be pleased to permit the petitioner to file an additional written statement. In the interlocutory application filed by the respondent, it had been stated that he had filed R.C.O.P.No.180 of 2003, against the petitioner, for eviction, on the ground of willful default in paying the monthly rent and for depositing the rent in the Court. In the meantime, in view of the dispute that had arisen in the family, the respondent's sons had filed a partition suit, in O.S.No.116 of 2004, before the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The said suit had been allowed, partially. 4. Against the judgment and decree made in the suit, the respondent had filed an appeal, in A.S.No.178 of 2005, on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. In the said appeal a compromise decree had been passed before the High Court. As per the compromise decree the suit property had been allotted to the respondent. In view of the events that had taken place after the filing of the suit, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, the necessity to file an additional written statement had arisen. 5. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner it had been stated that the application filed by the respondent, praying for permission to receive the second additional written statement, is frivolous, vexatious and not sustainable in the eye of law. It had been stated that, as per the prayer in the plaint, the dispute is only as to the validity and the binding nature of the final decree, in so far as the petitioner was concerned and therefore, the filing of the additional written statement, at a belated stage, is not permissible. 6. The trial Court, by its order, dated 3.8.2009, had allowed the application stating that the respondent had filed the application after the filing of the proof affidavit of P.W.1. When the trial in the suit had commenced, the petitioner would not be prejudiced, in any manner, if the respondent was allowed to file the additional written statement. Therefore, the trial court was constrained to allow the application, in the interest of justice. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, on 3.8.2009, in I.A.No.68 of 2009, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court. 7. It has been stated that the Court below had erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent, without considering the material evidence available on record. The Court below had failed to note that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction, in the month of February, 2004 and the respondent had filed his written statement, in the month of June, 2005, in which it had been stated that the suit is barred by limitation and the title of the petitioner, in respect of the suit property, was disputed. 8. The Court below had failed to note that the respondent had filed an additional written statement in which he had claimed title over the suit property, as per the sale deed, dated 14.3.1910. It had also been stated that the Court below had failed to note that the petitioner had filed his proof affidavit, on 10.7.2009, and after reading the same the respondent herein had filed an application seeking to receive the second additional written statement in which he had taken a totally new and irrelevant plea, which would go to show that the intention of the respondent is to defeat the rights of the petitioner. The trial Court ought to have seen that the additional written statement, sought to be filed by the respondent, was containing inconsistent and irrelevant pleas. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had stated that there was no delay in the filing of the interlocutory application, praying for permission to file an additional written statement. The learned counsel had stated that the suit, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, had been filed in the year, 2004. The written statement was filed by the respondent, on 10.6.2005. Thereafter, an additional written statement had been filed, on 6.6.2007. However, due to the compromise decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 8.1.2008, in A.S.No.187 of 2003, which had been received by the respondent, on 13.6.2008, the necessity had arisen for the filing of the second additional written statement. Since, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the filing of the second additional written statement, the trial Court had allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent, in I.A.No.68 of 2009. Therefore, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 3.8.2009, made in I.A.No.68 of 2009, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004. 11. The order of the trial Court, dated 3.8.2009, made in I.A.No.68 of 2009, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. Since, the compromise decree had been passed, only on 8.1.2008, in A.S.No.178 of 2005, on the file of this Court and as it had been received by the respondent, on 13.6.2008, the respondent had filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.68 of 2009, praying for the permission of the trial Court to file an additional written statement, bringing to light the events that had taken place subsequent to the filing of the suit, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004. The trial Court had found that no new facts were being introduced by the respondent, by way of the additional written statement. Further, the filing of the additional written statement, by the respondent, would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, the learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, is directed to dispose of the suit, in O.S.No.4070 of 2004, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. csh To The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore