Skip to content


Irudhayaraj Vs. Durairaj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 570 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 2475 of 2016
Judge
AppellantIrudhayaraj
RespondentDurairaj
Excerpt:
.....of the district munsif court, tiruchendur. 2. according to the petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a suit in o.s.no.35 of 2009 before the district munsif court, thiruchendur for declaration to declare the suit second schedule property belongs to the petitioner and for recovery of possession. the suit schedule properties consist of two schedules comprised in s.no.256/1a/2. the first schedule is measuring about 12 cents and the second schedule is the part of the first schedule measuring three cents situated on the western side of the first property. in the aforesaid suit, the respondent filed a written statement. thereafter, the respondent filed an application in i.a.no.1068 of 2014 to receive additional written statement. in the aforesaid additional written statement, the respondent.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.1068 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2009, dated 1.8.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.1068 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2009, dated 1.8.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

2. According to the Petitioner, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur for declaration to declare the suit second schedule property belongs to the Petitioner and for recovery of possession. The suit schedule properties consist of two schedules comprised in S.No.256/1A/2. The first schedule is measuring about 12 cents and the second schedule is the part of the first schedule measuring three cents situated on the western side of the first property. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent filed a written statement. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.1068 of 2014 to receive additional written statement. In the aforesaid additional written statement, the respondent raised a defence that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. After contest, the said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner, has filed the present C.R.P. before this Court.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent herein/defendant filed a written statement before the Court below and the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was already raised. Now in the additional written statement, the respondents have mentioned that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and has specifically mentioned the names of the necessary parties in the suit. Therefore the trial Court has allowed the said application.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that even though the respondent had raised the specific statement in the written statement, the trial Court has not framed issues regarding the same in the suit. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on a decision in the case of Muthuraman .vs.Muthukumaran reported in 2007(5) CTC 722, wherein, it has been held that additional written statement should be allowed, if they are relevant to prove the facts placed before the Court. Hence the trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent herein.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record.

6. The Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur for declaration and for recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent herein filed a written statement and in that written statement, the respondent has raised a plea that the plaintiff has not impleaded the necessary party in the suit. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.1068 of 2014 to receive additional written statement and prayed to dismiss the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. According to the Petitioner, P.W.1 was examined in the suit, at that stage, the present application was filed to receive additional written statement, which was a belated one and hence the said application is liable to be dismissed.

8. But in the light of the decision of this Court reported in 2007(5) CTC 722 cited supra, additional written statement should be allowed if they are relevant to prove the facts placed before the Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that already the respondent herein raised the defence in the written statement that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. But the trial Court has not framed issues regarding the same.

9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. However, the trial Court is directed to frame issues regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

10. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


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