The revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit challenging the rejection of the order passed in I.S. No.328 of 2007 in O.S. No.154 of 2003 whereby the Court below has rejected the request of the petitioner to file the additional written statement.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the notice dated 03.06.2008 issued by the petitioner is to be declared as null and void. The petitioner herein has issued a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1905 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff has allegedly encroached the panchayat road and put up construction. Hence challenging the same the suit has been laid by the respondent. The written statement has been filed by the respondent on 18.11.2003. For the better appreciation of the facts of the case, the written statement filed originally is extracted hereunder: (1) The suit is not maintainable in law and facts. Suit is not maintainable as prayed for (2) The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of party, since the competent person has not been made as a party.
Therefore the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with cost.
3. A perusal of the said written statement would show the total non- application of mind and the careless manner in which the written statement has been filed. Thereafter the present application has been filed seeking permission to file additional written statement by placing all the facts alongwith the additional written statement was filed indicating all the facts and thereby praying to dismiss the suit.
4. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the reasons assigned for receiving the additional written statement cannot be accepted. The Court observed that the application has been filed belately and the reason assigned that due to the burden of work and the mistake committed by the earlier counsel cannot be accepted. The Trial court has also held that allowing the application would prejudice the plaintiff. Hence the Trial Court has dismissed the said application.
5. On a perusal of the written statement it is clear that there is no specific denial of the averments made in the plaint. The entire written statement is devoid of any fact or particulars. In the present case, the suit is filed for declaration that the notice issued by the petitioner to remove the encroachment as null and void. Therefore, the entire issue will have to be adjudicated while deciding the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the specific denial, the same would amount to accepting the allegation made in the plaint and therefore under those circumstances allowing the application for additional written statement would affect the interest of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the fact that no particulars have given in the earlier written statement the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna by filing additional written statement which in fact is more than the original written statement.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment reported in 1998 3 MLJ 466 (N.Srinivasan vs. Muthammal), AIR 1976 Madras 302 (Murthi Gounder vs. Karuppanna), 1977 SCC 680 (M/s.Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another vs. M/s.Ladh Ram & Co.) to contend that the admission made in the written statement cannot be allowed to be changed by way of an additional written statement. On a reading of the above said judgment it is clear that in the original written statement, a specific stand was taken by the defendant in those cases and thereafter a contrary stand was ought to be taken. Therefore the Hon'ble High court in those cases was pleased to hold that a benefit that has endured to a party cannot be taken away. Therefore on a reading of a said judgments this Court is of the opinion that they are not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 5 CTC 722 (Muthuraman vs. Muthukumaran) and contended that the object of filing additional written statement is to supply what might have been omitted in the written stated filed in the first instance. The learned counsel also submitted that the additional written statement should be allowed if they are relevant to prove the facts placed before the Court.
7. Similarly, the learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 1 Law Weekly 429 (Thiyagarajan vs. Manivannan) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that even after the framing of the issue and when the suit is on trial stage a application for additional written statement can be entertained. The Hon'ble High Court in that case has held that the additional written statement can be allowed liberally since why to adjudicate the matter finally and completely. On a perusal of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place all the facts pleaded in the additional written statement. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed.
8. However as mentioned above, the perusal of the original written statement would clearly show the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the petitioner who is discharging public duties. Hence considering the above said facts while exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner this Court is constrained to award cost. Accordingly the revision is allowed on condition the petitioner pays Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the respondent counsel within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that in view of the order passed in the revision the respondent is permitted to file reply statement or an application for amendment if so advised. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
cs To The Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District.