M. Mani And 2 Others v. M.Rajendran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 08.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA A.No.1059 of 2020 and CS.No.453 of 2019

1. Mani

2. J. Prabhu

3. J. Pradeep ...Applicants Vs.

M. Rajendran

...Respondent

Prayer: The above applications filed under ORDER XIV RULE XXIII of OS.RULES READ with Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC praying a) this petition be not treated a urgent b) permit the petitioner herein to file the Reply Statement in the above suit For Applicant :

Mrs. Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for Ms. V. J. Latha For Respondents : Mr. P.V. Arul Phazam Nee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

The above application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to file a reply statement. The reply statement is also filed.

2. The objection to the said application is that in the guise of reply statement, the plaintiff has introduced a totally different case and has also introduced new documents and therefore the defendant may be given a chance to refute the new averments as well as the documents that have been filed.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the application for receiving the additional documents is yet to be numbered.

4. Be that as it may, considering the defendants/respondents objection that new allegations have been made in the reply statement, this application is allowed subject to the condition that the defendants be permitted to file an additional written statement.

Sd/.P.T.A.J.

08.07.2020 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2020.

SU.09.07.2020 COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/