(Prayer in CRP(MD).No.2814 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to direct the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Viralimalai to strike off the additional written statement filed in OS No.44 of 2024 by the 1st defendant/1st defendant dated 17.09.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

In CRP(MD).No.2815 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to direct the Learned Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai to strike off the additional written statement filed in O.S.No. 45 of 2024 by the 1st defendant/1st defendant dated 17.09.2025 and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

Common Order:

1. Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, learend Counsel for respondents.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are arrayed seeking direction to the Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai to strike off the addiitional written statement filed in O.S.No.44 & 45 of 2024 by the 1st defendant dated 17.09.2025 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai.

3. For the purpose of these revisions, this Court need not go into the details of the suit. The suits in O.S.Nos.44 & 45 of 2024 were originally presented as O.S.Nos.50 & 51 of 2019, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Keeranur. The suits are for permanent injunction. At the time of drafting the plaint, the plaintiff, instead of seeking permanent injunction against both defendants, had merely pleaded that the injunction be granted against the ''defendant''. Written statement was filed, issues were framed and the evidence was concluded.

4. At that stage, the plaintiffs noticed that, instead of showing it as ''defendants'', it had wrongly mentioned as ''defendant''. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed application in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in the respective suits under Order VI Rule 17, to rectify the typographical error. The application was opposed by the defendants. By way of a reasoned order dated 25.08.2025, the learned Principal District Munsif, Viralaimalai allowed the application and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint from using the words ''defendant'' to ''defendants''.

5. Following the procedure on allowing an amendment application, the trial Court called upon the defendants to file an additional written statement. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants filed an additional written statement running into several pages. Aggrieved, by this position taken by the defendants of filing a lengthy written statement by way of an additional written statement, the plaintiff is before this Court.

6. It is the plea of Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan that an Additional Written Statement should be confined with respect to the amendment that has been allowed and should not be taken as an opportunity to the defendants to recast the entire written statement already filed. He pleads that filing such a detailed written statement for a mere typographical error is absolutely unacceptable and the Trial Court ought not to have permitted the defendants to file such a statement.

7. Per Contra, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar urged that the defendants seek to bring certain facts which is only clarificatory of the pleas that have already been taken. He states that sale deeds, on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming title, is not a sale deed at all. This plea has already been taken by him in the original statement and since, the plaintiffs might take a defense that there cannot be any evidence without a pleading, he had expanded on the existing position in the additional written statement.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I have carefully gone through the records.

9. I am entirely in agreement with Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan that an Additional Written Statement cannot exceed the scope of amendment. It is possible that in a suit for bare injunction, an application is filed to amend the suit into one for title. In such a proceeding, the defendant would obviously be called upon to reject the title so pleaded by the plaintiff. Hence, it makes sense in such cases to expand on the plea already taken. It is also common practice that, on the death of a party, an application is filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased. On such an application being allowed, amended pleading is presented. If Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar's argument is accepted, then even in such cases the defendants, who are the adversaries, can jettison the entire pleading already taken and come forth with a new one. That is not the purport of the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. The purpose of giving an opportunity to the adversary to file an amended pleading in response to the one amended, is only to meet the case that has been projected in the amendment. In case, the adversary requires to expand on the pleading already taken, the provisions under Order VI Rule 17 or Order VIII Rule 9 are always available to both the parties. In fact, Order VIII Rule 9 has to be liberally construed. But, an opportunity to file an amended statement to an otherwise innocous amended plaint cannot be utilised to supplant the pleas already taken. I find support in this view of mine in:

                   i) Dittu Ram vs Amar Chand, AIR 1961 HP 46 and

                   ii) Kedar Nath vs Ram Parkash, 1999 (48) DRJ 489.

11. When this aspect was pointed out, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar urged that he intends to cross examine the plaintiff on certain aspects and hence, the expanded additional written statement. I am not in agreement with Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar. This is for the simple reason that, under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, cross examination must relate to relevant facts. Cross-examination of a party need not be confined to the facts to which the witness has testified in his examination in chief. A defendant is entitled to question the credibility or the veracity of the testimony of the plaintiff & vice versa. For the said purpose, he need not plead all those aspects, which according to him would defeat the case of the plaintiff. If the defendants were to plead everything that has to be asked in the cross examination, the art of cross-examination will no more exist, but will be confined to the four corners of the pleadings only. When cross examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witnesses have testified, the plea of Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar that evidence had to be pleaded, and therefore he filed a lengthy Additional Written Statement to an otherwise anodyne amendment, cannot stand scrutiny. Furthermore, under Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, merely material facts be stated in the pleadings, and not evidence.

12. Since the amendment is innocuous of merely changing ''defendant'' to ''defendants'', I find no necessity to retain the Additional Written Statement that has been presented by the first defendant on 17.09.2025. There shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai to exercise the power under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and strike off all the averments other than those which relate to the amendment which has been allowed.

13. With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.