The first respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2004 against the petitioner / second defendant and the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants 1 and 3 for compensation. Though the first respondent / plaintiff did not succeed in the Trial Court, it is found that on appeal, the case of the first respondent / plaintiff was accepted and she had been granted the decree by the Appellate Court that the defendants namely, the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first respondent / plaintiff being damages for the loss of the life of the first respondent / plaintiff's son.
2. Putting the above said decree in execution, it is found that the properties of the petitioner / second defendant had been sought to be attached. The petitioner / second defendant had filed a counter in the execution petition contending that he had paid the amount to the first respondent / plaintiff and the calculation of the amount is not correctly given and the petitioner / second defendant is not liable to pay any amount in the execution proceedings and hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. While the matter stood thus, it is found that the petitioner / second defendant had preferred an application in E.A.No.90 of 2017 seeking permission to file additional counter. The said application was resisted by the other side contending that only to delay the execution proceedings the application has been laid.
3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the petitioner / second defendant had raised completely a new set of facts in the additional counter not already set out in the original counter and accordingly, discountenanced the application put forth by the petitioner / second defendant. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
4. As rightly determined by the Court below, on a comparison of the original counter and the proposed additional counter, it is found that the petitioner / second defendant had given completely a new set of facts in the additional counter and when the said plea has not been taken by the petitioner / second defendant in the original counter, it is seen that the present application to receive the additional counter, after the lapse of two years, is nothing but an attempt to delay the execution proceedings endlessly and this type of endeavour by the petitioner / second defendant cannot be accepted. In such view of the matter, I am in full consensus with the findings of the Court below in discountenancing the application levelled by the petitioner / second defendant.
5. Resultanlty, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam..