Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.2/2020 IN OS 150/2019 OF MUNSIFF’S, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: 1 RADHAMMA, AGED 87 YEARS, D/O.NANIKUTTY AMMA, THAYYIL HOUSE, AMAYIDA MURI, KARUMADY VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2 REGHUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.LATE REGHAVAN PILLAI, VAZHUVELIL VEEDU, SRP MARKET P.O., THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THAYYIL VEEDU, AMAYIDA MURI, KARUMADY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.DHANUJA M.S RESPONDENT/S: 1 SUSEELA DEVI D/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, (FROM 2 CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KRISHNA NIVAS, (FROM R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SMT.N.D.DEEPA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Ext.P9 order passed by the trial court rejecting the second written statement submitted by the party concerned is under challenge. In fact, earlier, the defendants have filed a written statement raising their contentions, but it was found to be missing from the file of the trial court. As such, the Munsiff Court concerned had issued another direction to the defendants to submit a fresh one. In obedience to the said direction, a fresh written statement was submitted, wherein additional pleadings were also raised, according to the plaintiffs. It was objected by the plaintiffs on the ground that subsequently, the earlier written statement was recovered and as such, the submission of the second one would stand hit by Order IX Rule 8 C.P.C. But in fact, it was submitted based on the permission granted by the trial court by way of a direction and as such the written statement submitted is well within the legal provisions and not against the provisions of C.P.C. including Order IX C.P.C.. If there is any contradictory pleading or alternative defences, the defendant can opt for one among the contradictory defences before the commencement of the trial. That does not mean that the trial court will have the power to reject the pleading raised by the defendant especially when direction was issued in that behalf. Hence, Ext.P9 order will stand set aside and additional written statement submitted will stand restored to the file of the trial court. The O.P.(C) will stand allowed accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1240/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 16.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2019 IN IA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 IN IA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 IN IA
NO.950/2019 IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE B DIARY. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.2/2020 DATED 19.05.2020 IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 IN IA NO.2/2020 IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 IN IA NO.4/2020 IN OS NO.150/2019 BEFORE THE Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 29- 3-2023 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH