Permission to file reply statement cannot be granted after closure of evidence without justifying the delay.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on a 2005 sale agreement for property valued at Rs. 7,00,000/-.

The defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement and contending that the petitioner was merely a permissive occupant.

After the first defendant's death, his wife (fourth respondent) filed a supplemental written statement on 19.10.2022.

The trial proceeded, and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 07.10.2023.

Subsequently, on 02.11.2023, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 5 of 2024 seeking permission to file a reply statement, which was dismissed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to file a reply statement after the closure of her side of evidence to address claims regarding the character of her possession.

2. Whether there were new facts introduced in the supplemental written statement that legally necessitated a rejoinder/reply statement.

The court applied the settled legal principle governing Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that a reply statement (rejoinder) can only be filed when the defendant introduces a "new question of fact" in the written statement that requires explanation.

The court emphasized the principle of procedural diligence, noting that discretionary leave to file additional pleadings should not be granted at a belated stage of trial without sufficient justification.

The High Court observed that the core dispute regarding the petitioner's possession—whether it was under a sale agreement or permissive—was already pleaded in the original plaint. Therefore, the defendant’s written statement did not introduce a "new" fact but rather a defense to an existing plea, rendering a reply statement unnecessary.

The court found the petitioner’s conduct lacked diligence; the fourth defendant’s statement was filed in October 2022, yet the petitioner waited until November 2023—after her evidence was closed—to seek leave to file the reply. The court concluded that allowing such an application at this "belated stage" without justification would be improper.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming the Trial Court's order. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.