View Complete document Soundaraessane @ Soundaressin @ vs Pouchepavady @ Pouchepagandy on 15 April, 2002 Showing the contexts in which counter claim fromdate:1-1-2002 todate:31-12-2002 appears in the document Change context size Current 2. In brief, the respondents/plaintiffs claim that the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff married one Soundaraju on 4.12.1955 and the respondents-2 and 3/plaintiffs-2 and 3 were born to them on 9.10.1956 and 12.6.1962 respectively. As the status of relat hip of Soundaraju with the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff as husband and wife and the relationship of Soundaraju with respondents-2 and 3/ plaintiffs-2 and 3 as father and sons were disputed, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the above suit, seeking a a declaration, as prayed for. revision petitioner/defendant proposed to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., raising a subsequent pleading that he was not in India on 4.12.1955 a l; but the same was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs, contending that the revision petitioner/defendant attempts to drag on the proceedings. 5. The learned Judge, Family Court, Pondicherry, by order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A.No.531 of 2000, accepting the case of the respondents/plaintiffs and finding that the revision petitioner/defendant has not made any set-off or counter-claim, ref to grant the leave to file an additional written statement. Hence, the above revision. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs reiterated their submissions, which were argued before the Court below. 7. In this connection, I am obliged to refer Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., which reads as follows: “ Subsequent Pleadings.-- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks 8. A reading of the above makes it clear that the mere want of claim to set-off or counter-claim, by itself, cannot be a ground to refuse leave for granting permission to raise subsequent pleadings. In other words, even in the absence of an set-off or counter-claim, the Court, if satisfied, can grant leave to raise subsequent pleadings, and therefore, what is required under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., is that the defendant should satisfy the Court as to the relevancy of the subsequent pleadi ngs, and while granting such leave, the discretion conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., should be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice, of course, without encouraging the parties to bring a new case by furnishing new de tails. instant case, the marriage between the first plaintiff and Soundaraju on 4.12.1955, as pleaded in the plaint, was disputed even at the very first instance. Only to substantiate the above plea, the revision petitioner/defendant se o file an additional written statement, stating that he was not present at Pondicherry on 4.12.1955. If that be so, by granting leave to the revision petitioner/defendant to file an additional written statement, will not, in any way, prejudice the respo ndents/plaintiffs, even though the revision petitioner/defendant does not seek any set-off or counter-claim in the additional written statement, as the facts of the case and the relief sought for in the plaint, do not warrant such plea of set-off and cou nter-claim. Hence, finding that the refusal to grant leave to the revision petitioner/defendant to file an additional written statement by order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A.No.531 of 2000 is unjustified, the same is set aside and the revision is allowed, without prejudice to the right of the respondents/plaintiffs to contest th e plea raised by the revision petitioner/defendant in a manner known to law, with a further direction
Posted on: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:53:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015