Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to file an additional written statement. - The question as to whether the memo adopting the written statement of another defendant was filed with or without the knowledge of the concerned party, is certainly a matter for verification by the Court, as and when steps are initiated. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is however left open to respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the memo filed on their behalf adopting the written statement of the 15th defendant i.e., 15th respondent herein and if permitted, to file an application seeking permission of the Court to file a written statement of their own. The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY            

C.R.P.No.667 of 2012

27.09.2012

Banka Kanaka Rao.

Kandregula Sanjeev Kumar and others.

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri M.Karuna Sagar

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 &2: Smt. Anjana Devi

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases Referred:

ORDER:
        The petitioner filed O.S.No.154 of 2008 in the Court of VII Additional
District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam against the respondents herein
for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16.03.2005
and perpetual injunction.  While the relief of specific performance is claimed
against respondents 1 to 6 herein, respondents 7 to 15 were added in the context
of relief of perpetual injunction.  Among them, the 15th respondent filed a
written statement and the same was adopted by respondents 7 to14.
        Defendants 9 and 10 i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.1034 of
2011 under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to file an
additional written statement.  It was stated that the counsel, who was engaged
by them, has filed the memo, adopting the written statement filed by the 15th
respondent without their knowledge and that on realizing the same, they have
engaged another Advocate and as per his advice, they wanted to file additional
written statement. The petitioner opposed the application by filing counter.
The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 19.01.2012.  Hence, this
civil revision petition.
        Heard Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.
Anjana Devi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
        The suit filed by the petitioner is for the relief of specific performance
an agreement of sale, dated 16.03.2005 and for perpetual injunction.  While the
first limb of the relief is claimed exclusively against defendants 1 to 6, the
second part of it is claimed against all the defendants.  Defendants 7 to 15
constituted a separate group.  A written statement was filed by defendants No.15
i.e., respondent No.15 herein.  Other respondents of that group adopted the same
by fling memos.
        Respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendnats 9 and 10 filed I.A.No.1034 of 2011
under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking permission to file additional written
statement.  The trial Court allowed the same by taking the view that the lapses,
if any, on the part of the counsel should not impair the rights of the parties.
Rule 9 of Order 8 C.P.C. prohibits filing of additional pleadings, except in the
form of set off or counter claim, otherwise than on the basis of leave of the
Court.  The area of controversy between the parties is reflected in the
pleadings viz, plaint and written statement.  Once the pleadings are complete,
the Court frames the issues and the parties are permitted to adduce evidence.
Filing of additional pleadings would change the contours of litigation and
several complications would arise.  That is the reason why the Legislature had
placed restrictions upon filing of additional pleadings.
        In the instant case, respondents 1 and 2 are deemed to have filed written
statement, since they have filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by
the 15th respondent.  Obviously for that reason, they named the written
statement, which,they wanted to file independently as 'additional written
statement'.  The permission accorded to respondents 1 and 2 by the trial Court
would result in a situation, where they not only have the benefit of the
contents of written statement filed by the 15th respondent, but also of the
additional written statement.  The basis pleaded by respondents 1 and 2 for
filing additional written statement does not support this.  If they wanted to
distance themselves from the written statement filed by respondent No.15, they
ought to have withdrawn the memo, through which they adopted the written
statement.  As long as the memo remains, respondents 1 and 2 cannot be permitted
to file another written statement in the form of additional pleadings.
        The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that respondents 1and 2 have
nothing to do with the written statement filed by the 15th respondent and that
they are being given an opportunity to file their own written statement.
        Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court dated 18.09.2002 in C.R.P.Nos.502 and 505 of 2002.  That was a case,
where the defendants filed a written statement of their own and by taking a
stand that the written statement was drafted detrimental to their interests and
without their instructions, they intended to file another written statement.
The trial Court dismissed the application.  The same was upheld by this Court
and later on, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.  Such is not the case here.
Respondents 1 and 2 did not file written statement of their own.  Though the
filing of a memo adopting the written statement of another defendant may bring
about a situation as to making the pleadings complete, the liberty of a
defendant to file independent written statement cannot be taken away, in case
the memo was filed without his knowledge. The question as to whether the memo 
adopting the written statement of another defendant was filed with or without
the knowledge of the concerned party, is certainly a matter for verification by
the Court, as and when steps are initiated.

        Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under
revision is set aside.  It is however left open to respondents 1 and 2 to
withdraw the memo filed on their behalf adopting the written statement of the
15th defendant i.e., 15th respondent herein and if permitted, to file an
application seeking permission of the Court to file a written statement of their
own. 
        The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall
also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________  
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
Date: 27.09.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.