Madras High Court
CRP/6736/2026 of K. Saravanan Vs A Barook Ali on 27 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6736 of 2026
& CMP.No.29007 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012485092026}
K.Saravanan
S/o. Late. S.Kaathaperumal,
No.580, B Vari Carton,
Anumanthapuram,
Eswaran Kovil Thenpuram Road,
Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. A.Barook Ali
S/o. Abdul Wahab,
No.580/6, 5 Karnar,
Balaji Nagar,
Dharapuram Taluk,
Tirupur District.
2. A.Aasiya Begam
W/o. A.Barook Ali,
No.580/6, 5 Karnar,
Balaji Nagar,
Dharmapuri Taluk,
Tirupur District.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 18.9.2026 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.123 of 2024 by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.
For Petitioner:
Mr.S.Lakshmi Narayanan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 18.9.2026 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.123 of 2024 by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to file an additional written statement, came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of eviction of the petitioner/defendant, for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages and compensation. When the said suit reached the stage of trial, the said application came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to file an additional written statement.
5. But, by the impugned order, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
6. The reason that has been assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the said application is extracted as hereunder: “fle;j
31.7.2022
Mk; Njjp vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/thjpfSf;F
Kd;gzkhf &gha; 1>00>000/- kw;Wk; 04.7.2022 Njjp Kjy; 30.07.2022 Njjp tiuf;Fkhd thlif njhif &gha; 3>800/- Mf nkhj;jk; 1>03>800/- njhifia vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/ thjpfSf;F
ehd;nfhLj;Njd;.
1k; vjph;kDjhuh;/thjpAk; tof;fk; Nghy; jhd;
Nkw;gb njhifiag; ngw;Wf;nfhz;Nld; vd;W
vdJ
Nehl;by; ifnahg;gk; nra;Js;shh;. ehd; Nkw;gb njhifia vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/thjpfSf;F
nfhLf;Fk; NghJk; mij 1k; vjph;kDjhuh;/thjp ngw;Wf; nfhz;L ifnahg;gk; nra;Ak;NghJk; Nkw;gb KUNfrd; vd;Dld; ,Ue;jhh;>
2;k; vjph;kDjhuh;/thjpAk; cldpUe;jhh;. mth; vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/thjpfs; ePjpkd;w Copah;fs; vd;gjhy; mth;fSf;F vjpuhd rhl;rpahf jhd; ,Ue;jhy; jd;idAk; kpul;b njhe;jpuT nra;thh;fs; vd;W vz;zp mQ;rpf; nfhz;bUe;jhh;. Mdhy; Nkw;gb KUNfrd; jw;NghJ
ijhpaj;ij tutioj;Jf; nfhz;L vjph;kDjhuh;fs;/ thjpfs; jhq;fs; vd;dplkpUe;J & 1>00>000/- thq;ftpy;iy vd;W $wp tUtjhy; jw;NghJ fle;j 31.07.2022 Njjp ele;j tptuj;ij rhl;rpak; mspf;f jahuhf cs;sjhf njhptpj;Js;shh;. Nkw;gb KUNfrd; jhd; ehd;> vjph;kDjhuh;fs/thjpfSf;F Kd;gzj; njhif & 1>00>000/- nfhLj;jw;fhd xNu rhl;rp vd;gjhy; vdJ jug;gpy; Nkw;gb rq;fjpfis njhptpf;f Ntz;bAs;sjhy; vdJ jug;gpy; $Ljy; tptug;gj;jphpf;if jhf;fy; nra;a Ntz;baJ mtrpakhAk; epahakhAk; cs;sJ. VdNt> vdJ jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;Ak; ,e;j $Ljy; tptug; gj;jphpf;ifia
(Additional
statement) jhf;fy; nra;a mDkjp Nfhhp ,k;kDit jhf;fy; nra;fpNwd;.”
7. The above reason assigned by the petitioner/defendant, by no stretch, can be considered to be a ground for filing the additional written statement.
8. According to the petitioner/defendant, earlier, one Mr.Murugesan was fearing to give evidence as a witness and therefore, the written statement was filed at that point of time. Later, the said Mr.Murugesan became more confident to depose as a witness and hence, the petitioner/defendant wanted to file the additional written statement on that basis.
9. As rightly found by the Court below, the ground that has been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the said application does not, in any way, satisfy the requirement of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC. The parties cannot be changing their pleadings based on the mood of the witnesses that they are inclined to examine. The affidavit filed in support of the said application is bereft of any merits and has been rightly dismissed by the Court below.
10. In the light of the above discussions, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 18.9.2026 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.123 of 2024 by the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram stands confirmed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 27-10-2026 To The District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6736 of 2026& CMP.No.29007 of 2026 27-10-2026