Skip to content


Venkataswami Naidu and ors. Vs. the Uppilipalayam Vamana Vilasa Nidhi, Limited, Secretary, T. Krishnaswami Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad117; 153Ind.Cas.453; (1935)68MLJ155
AppellantVenkataswami Naidu and ors.
RespondentThe Uppilipalayam Vamana Vilasa Nidhi, Limited, Secretary, T. Krishnaswami Naidu
Cases ReferredBennet v. Lee
Excerpt:
- .....15th march, 1934 he put in i.a. no. 277 of 1934 in the suit for permission to file an additional written statement. the court refused his application on two grounds (1) that it contained irrelevant and prolix matter and (2) that it contained scandalous matter. against this order the present revision petition has been filed.2. the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that a minor defendant is entitled on attaining majority to put in an additional written statement. he quotes trevelyan on minors, page 270 and also simpson's law of infants, p. 311. the first does not quote any authority for the statement. the second quotes bennet v. lee (1742) 2 atk. 529 : 26 e.r. 717. the point does not seem to have been raised at all before the lower court. order 32, rules 12, 13 and 14 deal.....
Judgment:

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. The suit was brought on two mortgages alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendants who is dead. Written statement was put in and issues were framed on 10th November, 1933. The first petitioner attained majority on 18th February, 1934 and on 15th March, 1934 he put in I.A. No. 277 of 1934 in the suit for permission to file an additional written statement. The Court refused his application on two grounds (1) that it contained irrelevant and prolix matter and (2) that it contained scandalous matter. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that a minor defendant is entitled on attaining majority to put in an additional written statement. He quotes Trevelyan on Minors, page 270 and also Simpson's Law of Infants, p. 311. The first does not quote any authority for the statement. The second quotes Bennet v. Lee (1742) 2 Atk. 529 : 26 E.R. 717. The point does not seem to have been raised at all before the lower Court. Order 32, Rules 12, 13 and 14 deal with the case of a minor plaintiff who attains majority but there are no rules dealing with the case of a minor defendant attaining majority. The first question therefore is whether the lower Court in refusing the application can be said to have refused to exercise jurisdiction which it was bound to exercise so as to enable this Court to interfere in revision. I am unable to hold this in the circumstances of the case. In India, we are governed by the Civil Procedure Code and if this has not made special rules in the case of minor defendants, it seems to me, that they fall under the general provisions of Order 8, Rule 9, in the matter of putting in additional written statement. Under Order 8, Rule 9, such an additional written statement otherwise than by way of defence to a set off shall only be presented by leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court thinks fit. Consequently the refusal of the Court to grant permission, except in the one instance named which does not apply to the present case, would not be a matter with which this Court could interfere in revision.

3. As to the merits I can only say that issues have been allowed on every possible aspect of the case and nothing in the additional written statement sought to be filed raises any new issue. On the other hand, it is unquestionably prolix and I would also say in parts scandalous.

4. The Revision Petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.


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