IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34270 of 2008(D) -------------------------- OS.922/2001 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANANTHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, PANGAL, NEAR FCI, PUDUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE CHELLAN, MANGAL HOUSE, PANDARAKKAVU, KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE CHELLAN, 34.F. RAILWAY COLONY PORT LINE, POTHANNUR, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1,2 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1,2 SRI.NEELAKANDAN P.M. FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.34270/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 922/2001 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.10757/2004 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN IA 2845/08 EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 2845/08 / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34270 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.922 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Palakkad. The respondents are the plaintiffs therein. The respondents had earlier instituted R.C.P.No.51 of 1996 in the Rent Control Court, Palakkad seeking eviction of the petitioner herein and others from two residential buildings. The tenants denied the title of the landlords, the respondents herein. The denial of title was found to be bona fide by the Rent Control Court, which by order passed on 30.1.2001 relegated the parties to the civil court. The respondents thereupon filed O.S.No.922 of 2001 on 31.12.2001 seeking the relief of recovery of possession. 2. The petitioner filed his written statement on 18.12.2002. Long thereafter, after the trial of the suit was over, arguments heard and judgment in the suit was reserved, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2845 of 2008 (Ext.P5 herein) praying that the additional written statement filed along with it (Ext.P4) may be received. The said application was heard by the court below on 29.8.2008. The respondents resisted the said petition by filing a counter affidavit. It was contended inter alia that the application is belated and is an attempt to delay the disposal W.P(C).No.34270 of 2008 -:2:- of the suit. By Ext.P6 order passed on 29.8.2008 the court below dismissed the suit. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P6. 3. When the writ petition was taken up today for hearing in the forenoon session, a representation was made on behalf of Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the writ petition may be passed over and taken after some time. When the writ petition was again called on for hearing in the post lunch session at 3 p.m., none appeared for the petitioner. There was also no representation. I therefore, heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that Ext.P4 additional written statement raising a plea that the title, if any, of the respondents is lost by adverse possession and limitation was presented before the court below only on 6.8.2008, long after the trial of the suit was over, arguments heard and judgment reserved in the suit. The court below has, by the impugned order, held that as the suit was pending in the court below for nearly seven years and no explanation has been given for not raising the plea of adverse possession and limitation in the written statement filed on 18.12.2002, the additional written statement cannot be received, that too after the trial was closed, arguments heard and the case was reserved for W.P(C).No.34270 of 2008 -:3:- judgment. In my opinion the reasoning of the court below cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court below was perfectly right in holding that Ext.P5 application seeking the reception of Ext.P4 additional written statement is highly belated and that if the same is received, it will change the very nature of the defence set up in the original written statement necessitating a reopening of the trial. In such circumstances I find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P6. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Having regard to the fact that nearly two years have passed after arguments were heard in the suit, I direct the court below to hear the parties to the suit afresh and dispose of the suit within two months from the date on which the respondents produce a certified copy of this judgment before the court below. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.34270 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th August, 2010