IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.2.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).No.386 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.3422 of 2006 1.Vishnupriya 2.Nagalakshmi ... Petitioners / Plaintiffs vs. 1.Kuppammal 2.Vijaya 3.Sudha Maheswari ... Respondents / Defendants This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 18.1.2005 passed in I.A.No.251 of 2004 in O.S.No.3 of 1992 by the District Munsif, Gudiyattam. For Petitioners : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthukrishnan ORDER Inveighing the order dated 18.1.2005 passed in I.A.No.251 of 2004 in O.S.No.3 of 1992 by the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:- The revision petitioners/plaintiffs herein filed the suit O.S.No.3 of 1992 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) to divide the suit schedule mentioned properties into 16 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 5 of such shares to the plaintiffs possession. (b)to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit properties if an amicable settlement is not reached between the parties; (c) to allow the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The respondents/defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement. Whereupon issues were framed and the matter was posted for trial. Before commencement of trial, the defendants came forward with I.A.No.251 of 2004 seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the Court allowed the defendants to file the additional written statement. Animadverting upon such allowing of the I.A. this civil revision petition is focussed by the plaintiffs on various grounds inter alia thus: the lower Court should not have allowed the I.A.for the reason that in the additional written statement, the defendants have chosen to take antithetical stands with that of the ones in the original written statements, thereof they virtually admitted the fact that Vishnupriya is the grand daughter of the first defendant, without admitting the civil death of her son; however in the additional written statement, they have chosen to give a go by to the earlier admission made by them. But they contended as though D1's son was murdered by one Mohankumar and as such the defendants are trying to put the plaintiffs in a disadvantageous position in the litigative process. 3. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would torpido the grounds as found set out in the revision petition by advancing his argument to the effect that it is a well settled proposition of law that the defendant is having the right to take such stands, which he might deem fit and proper, so as to defend the case. In certain circumstances, even if the subsequent plea turns out to be antithetical to the earlier plea, nevertheless such pleas could be allowed to be raised and it is for the Court to consider the genuineness of the pleas and came to the conclusion. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would also make a supine submission that if at all the plaintiffs feel that in the additional written statement contrary or contradictory pleas have been taken by the defendants, it is open for the plaintiffs to raise all such objections and try to achieve success in the litigative process and it is for the Court to decide ultimately the truth and render its judgement. 5. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the defendants should be given ample opportunity to put forth the pleas. It is a trite proposition of law that in the litigative process, defendant has been given more liberty than the plaintiff to change his pleas or modify his earlier pleas and it is for the Court to decide the truth or otherwise involved in the pleas of the defendant. In this case, the plaintiffs also have not started https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adducing evidence and in such a case no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also having the opportunity of filing reply statement to the addition written statement to be filed by the defendants and the Court should frame necessary issues in this regard. Hence, I could see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the order dated 18.1.2005 passed in I.A.No.251 of 2004 in O.S.No.3 of 1992 by the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, is confirmed and this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Msk To The District Munsif, Gudiyattam. 1 cc to Mr.G. Muthukrishnan, Sr. 6509 C.R.P.(PD).No.386 of 2006 KSK (CO) kk 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/