Skip to content


Thangammal and Another Vs. Saraswathi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P.(P.D.) No. 2339 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Judge
AppellantThangammal and Another
RespondentSaraswathi
Excerpt:
the petitioners, during the fag end of the trial, filed an interlocutory application in i.a.no. 173 of 2015 to file additional written statement. the application was dismissed by the learned trial judge both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. the said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. the respondent filed a suit before the subordinate court at perundurai in o.s. no. 164 of 2011 for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and separate allotment of one such share to her. the suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. the trial court framed issues and thereafter, parties adduced evidence. 4. the petitioners.....
Judgment:

The petitioners, during the fag end of the trial, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No. 173 of 2015 to file additional written statement. The application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The respondent filed a suit before the Subordinate Court at Perundurai in O.S. No. 164 of 2011 for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and separate allotment of one such share to her. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. The Trial Court framed issues and thereafter, parties adduced evidence.

4. The petitioners after cross examining D1 to D3 filed an application to receive additional written statement. The petitioners by way of additional written statement wanted to take up a plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioners for the reasons best known to them failed to take up the plea of non-joinder at the earliest point of time. The learned Trial Judge very correctly held that the plea of non-joinder cannot be raised at the fag end of the trial. In fact, it was only at the stage of arguments, the petitioners have filed the application. In case, the application is allowed, the Trial Court has to implead the parties and thereafter, the process should commence once again including recording evidence on behalf of the parties. The learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. I do not find any error or illegality in the said order warranting interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the up shot, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

C.R.P. dismissed - No costs - M.Ps. closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //