Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 25.01.2017 passed in I.A.Nos.1000, 999 and 998 of 2016 in O.S.No.83 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
The defendant in the suit O.S.No.83 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, is the revision petitioner before this Court. Pending trial, after examination of the plaintiff, when the suit was posted for further evidence, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed applications to re-open and recall the evidence of PW1 and also to file additional written statement.
2.The Trial Court has taken note of the directions of the High Court in W.P(MD)No.10439 of 2008 dated 14.09.2016 wherein, the High Court has specifically directed the Trial Court to complete the trial by 02.02.2017. This writ petition was filed by the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein. After getting a specific order from the High Court for early disposal, interlocutory applications to re-open the plaintiff side evidence, to recall PW1 and to file additional written statement have been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a fraud has been committed by the plaintiff by manipulating documents and therefore, it is essential to file additional written statement to establish that one Vijayakumar and the plaintiff in collusion have cheated her by creating documents with dishonest intention and the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the said Vijayakumar on 11.12.2001 and the sale deed pursuant to the agreement on 05.10.2004 are all forged documents and the plea of acquiescence and estoppel in the original written statement was omitted by oversight. Hence, the same has to be canvassed by way of additional written statement.
4.This Court finds no merit in CRP(MD)No.367 of 2017 filed against the dismissal of I.A.No.1000 of 2016, seeking to file additional written statement. After settlement of issues and commencement of trial, the revision petitioner wants to make out a new case of acquiescence and estoppel by way of additional written statement which she is not entitled to raise at this stage. Furthermore, when there is a specific direction by the High Court to dispose of the suit within a specific time in the writ petition filed by this revision petitioner, the revision petitioner herein ought to have been vigilant in canvassing her case while examining the plaintiff. She cannot take her own time to file additional written statement and to recall the witness at her pleasure, blaming the erstwhile counsel. This Court see it as a tactics to delay the proceedings and to defeat the direction of the High Court.
5.Since the plea to file additional written statement after the commencement of trial is not permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure except in extraordinary cases, this Court finds no such special circumstances available to entertain I.A.No.1000 of 2016. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the said interlocutory application and there is no error to interfere in the said order. Accordingly, CRP(MD)No.367 of 2017 is dismissed.
6.As far as CRP(MD)Nos.368 and 379 of 2017 filed against the dismissal of I.A.Nos.998 and 999 of 2016 seeking to re-open plaintiff side evidence and to recall PW1, are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the Trial Court, the plaintiff side evidence is closed and the matter is posted for examination of defendant side witnesses. Therefore, the defendant may be permitted to putforth her case and elucidate certain facts, by cross examining PW1 before examination of defendant side witnesses.
7.To meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the defendant to recall PW1 to cross examine. Such cross examination should be completed before 24.03.2017. If the revision petitioner fails to avail this opportunity, no further opportunity will be given to her.
With the above direction, CRP(MD)Nos.368 and 379 of 2017 are allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.1826 of 2017 is closed.
To The Sub Court, Pudukkottai..