1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2035 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Gnanaselvam .. Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. Mary .. Respondent/Petitioner/Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 22.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011 in Original Suit No.513 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 22.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011 in Original Suit No.513 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.513 of 2004 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunctions, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the present respondent as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011 under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit her to file additional written statement. The Court has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the averments made in the plaint as well as in original written statement and also considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.513 of 2004 as well as in Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011 and the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.513 of 2004 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunctions. In the plaint, it has been specifically https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 averred that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Kalirajan. On the side of the respondent/defendant, a detailed written statement has been filed, wherein it has been specifically stated that the suit property is originally belonged to one Ramdoss and through his power of attorney, the defendant has purchased the same. In the additional written statement at paragraph No.4, it is stated like thus: "It is also submitted that no sale deed was registered in favour of the plaintiff either in Sivakasi Sub-Registrar Office or in Palayamkottai on 22.01.1993". 5. The averments putforth in the additional written statement are not contra to the main stand taken in the written statement. The Court below after considering the nature of averments made in the original written statement as well as in the additional written statement has rightly allowed Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the concerned suit has been instituted in the year 2004 and for the past seven years, the respondent/defendant has not made any attempt so as to file additional written statement and therefore the present petition has been filed very belatedly. 7. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.513 of 2004 and also considering the fact that both parties are making rival claims over the suit property, this Court is of the view that the alleged delay is not a ground for dismissing the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.476 of 2011 in Original Suit No.513 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi is confirmed. However the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.513 of 2004 before the end of February, 2012 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The District Munsif, Sivakasi. Copy to the Section officer (Judl.Section) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (for report) +1cc to M/s.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.36826 smn ssk/11.11.11 /4c-3p/- C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2035 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/