1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD) No.1781 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.K.Manivanan 2.K.Saraswathy .. Petitioners/ Defendants Vs. 1.P.S.P.Sellaram 2.D.P.S.Ponnuthurai 3.Amaravathi . Respondents / Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 29.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.238 of 2011 in Original Suit No.4 of 2010 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.K.Chelladurai 1 and 2 For Respondent No.3 : No appearance ORDER The order dated 29.07.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.238 of 2011 in Original Suit No.4 of 2010 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their shares, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1 and 2 and the third respondent has been shown as third defendant. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed by the revision petitioners in Interlocutory Application No.238 of 2011 under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit them to file additional written statement for the reasons stated therein. The Court below has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 as revision petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that with regard to suit properties certain encumbrances have been created and in order to putforth the same by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 way of filing additional written statement, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below without considering the fact that all the documents mentioned in the petition are touching the suit properties, has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has contended that in the petition three documents have been mentioned and one document is an unregistered one and another document is simple mortgage and barred by limitation and third document is also unregistered and under the said circumstances the documents mentioned in the petition are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the present lis and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with. 5. In fact, this Court has perused the nature of the documents sought to be introduced by way of filing additional written statement and ultimately found that those documents are mortgage deeds and as rightly pointed out on the side of the contesting respondents, two documents are unregistered and one document is registered and the same is of the year 1990. The objection raised on the side of the contesting respondents is that two documents are unregistered and one document is barred by limitation. The present petition has been filed under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to permit the revision petitioners/petitioners/ defendants 1 and 2 to file additional written statement stating that the documents in question are touching the suit properties. 6. Considering the fact that the documents in question have been created only with regard to suit properties, its admissibility and also enforceability can be decided only after marking the same on either side and at this stage we cannot decide its value or admissibility. Since the documents in question mentioned in the additional written statement are related to suit properties, this Court is of the view that for the purpose of giving quietus to the parties, the present petition can be allowed on such terms as stated infra. But the Court below without considering the nature of the documents, has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.238 of 2011 in Original Suit No.4 of 2010 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.238 of 2011 is allowed. However, the revision petitioners are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs by way of cost and to that effect a memo has to be filed in Original Suit No.4 of 2010. The Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 District Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam is directed to proceed further only after receipt of memo. Further the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs are entitled to file replication statement. The Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.4 of 2010 before the end of March, 2012 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Court/ Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. Copy to: The Section Officer,V.R.section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1781 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn sma/28.12.2011/3c/3p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/