Decided on November 21,2017

JAYAN Appellant
Muraleedharan And Others Respondents


ANIL K.NARENDRAN,J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext. P8 order dated 14.8.2017 of the said court in I. A. No. 2830 of 2017 in that suit, which is an interlocutory application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file additional written statement. The relief sought for in the said application was opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff by filing Ext. P6 counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the application is highly belated and that, no reasons have been stated for not filing such an application earlier, etc. After considering the rival contentions, the court below dismissed the said application by Ext. P8 order dated 14.8.2017 and the reasoning of the said court, as contained in paragraph 4 of that order, reads thus: "4. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract for sale. The 1st defendant filed a detailed written statement on 25.06.2014. In the written statement it was contended that the agreement for sale produced by the plaintiff is a fabricated one fabricated by misusing signed stamp paper and signed papers which were given by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff in connection with a loan availed from the plaintiff. The suit is listed for trial to 09.08.2017. The petitioner filed the petition on 09.08.2017. A bare look at the plea sought to be introduced by the petitioner by way of additional written statement shows that the same is at variance with the plea already taken. Admittedly the agreement for sale was filed along with the plaint by the plaintiff. According to the petitioner, it has came to his knowledge that the signatures in the agreement for sale except in the stamp paper are not that of his recently. I find merit in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff that new facts/pleadings cannot be permitted by way of additional written statement. The new defence canvased by the petitioner is inconsistent with the previous pleading in the written statement which cannot be entertained. New pleading can be by way of independent or primary amendment in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC only. Hence the petition is not allowable."
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant.
(3.) The sole issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to the legality or otherwise of Ext. P8 order dated 14.8.2017 of the court below in I.A. No. 2830 of 2017 in O.S. No. 58 of 2014.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.