IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3080 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- I.A. NO.190/2011 IN OS.1184/2004 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A.190/11 & PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NIRMALA RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.THANDASSERRY VEETTIL RADHAKRISHNAN, KARAKKAD DESOM, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SRI.K.THAVAMONY, SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW, SRI.ANZAR BASHEER, SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A. & 11TH DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KABIN KUMAR, S/O.BABURAJ, THANDASSERRY HOUSE, PUTHENPEEDIKA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BABURAJAN, THANDASSERRY HOUSE, -DO-, PIN-680 642. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3080 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.1184/2004 OF THRISSUR SUB COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 11TH DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT, DATED 20/07/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO.190/11 DATED 06/01/2011 BY THE 11TH DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDL. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 11TH DEFENDANT DATED 06/01/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE I.A. NO.190/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.190/2011 IN O.S. NO.1184/2004 DATED 29/07/2011 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3080 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.1184 of 2004 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur challenging Ext.P7, order receiving the additional written statement filed by the respondent/11th defendant. 2. O.S. No.1184 of 2004 is a suit to set aside document No.3072/1/1997 and the documents executed among the respondents based on that document, for prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages. According to the petitioner she executed document No.3072/1/1997 as a security in connection with a loan transaction. Respondent/11th defendant disputed that claim. Respondent filed Ext.P4 (I.A. No.190 of 2011) to receive additional written statement wherein he contended that he subsequently learned that that 4th defendant had filed claim petitions as I.A. No.7098 of 2003 and 9242 of 2004 in O.S. Nos.199 of 2003 and 2996 of 2004, respectively before the learned Munsiff and obtained favourable orders concerning the suit property. According to the respondent he purchased the O.P(C) . No.3080 of 2011 -: 2 :- property from the 4th defendant. Respondent wanted to plead the decisions in the claim petitions referred above and also that he is a bona fide purchaser. Respondent filed additional written statement (Ext.P5) along with Ext.P4, application. To Ext.P4, application petitioner filed Ext.P6, objection. But Ext.P4, application was allowed as per Ext.P7, order. Exhibit P7, order is under challenge. 3. Since learned counsel expressed a doubt that at the time Ext.P4, application was allowed ex parte order against the respondent had not been set aside, the matter was got verified through the Registrar (Judicial). It is reported that respondent was no set ex parte. 4. Now question is whether Ext.P7, order is sustainable or not. According to the learned counsel, all the contentions which respondent has raised in Ext.P5 were available to him even when he filed the original written statement. According to the respondent, he learned about the decisions in the claim petitions only later. It is not as if the court is powerless to allow subsequent pleadings to be filed. Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the court to do so. 5. Having gone through the contentions raised in the O.P(C) . No.3080 of 2011 -: 3 :- additional written statement and hearing learned counsel I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge requiring interference. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv