1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.303 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 M.Chinnalagi ..Petitioner/Respondent/ Plaintiff Vs. V.Mahendran ..Respondent/Petitioner/ 3rd Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the Fair and Decretal Order in I.A.No.614 of 2010 in O.S.No.62 of 2008 dated 30.11.2010 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai and set aside the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.M.C.Swamy For Respondent : Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh For Caveator ORDER The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court by which the trial Court allowed the Respondent to file additional written statement. 2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for partition and other reliefs including injunction in which the respondent is arrayed as the third defendant. All the parties filed written statement and the suit is ready for trial. At this stage, the third Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to receive the additional written statement. The said application was resisted by the petitioner stating that filing of additional written statement is belated, that too, at the stage of trial and it has been filed without any document to substantiate the plea raised in the additional written statement and that the respondent is a third party to the joint family and he cannot raise any plea which is only available to family members. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The trial Court, by taking the entire facts into consideration, allowed the petition to receive the additional written statement. The said order is challenged before this Court. 4. It is an admitted fact that the trial has not commenced. The additional written statement has been filed by the third respondent. Even if any new plea is taken and no document has been filed on behalf of the respondent, it is always open to the petitioner to take advantage of the position. The written statement is only a statement of defence on the side of the defendant. Unless it is proved by positive evidence, it will remain as a contention only. By allowing the respondent to raise an additional written statement, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. If the petitioner intends to contradict what are all stated in the additional written statement, the petitioner is at liberty to file reply statement. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while allowing the petition, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a reply statement and the grievance of the petitioner is justified. Therefore, sustaining the order passed by the trial Court, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a written statement to the additional written statement filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above liberty to the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh, Advocate (SR.No.11725) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.303 of 2011 08.03.2011 gsr NSV/14.3.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/