Madras High Court
CRP/5564/2026 of R.Arulselvi Vs Thangam on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.5564 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.24045 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011829952026}
R.Arulselvi
W/o.Sadhasivam
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Thangam,
W/o.Rangasamy
2. Sivakumar
S/o.Rangasamy
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 13.03.2026 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.195 of 2024 on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Ponraj
For Respondents :
Mr.L.Ramu
*****
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 13.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.195 of 2024 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to file a reply statement to the written statement filed by the defendants came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2024 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of appropriate share in the suit properties and for other consequential reliefs. Written statement was filed by the defendants. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, wanted to refute certain facts stated in the written statement and hence, sought for filing reply statement.
4. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has taken a contradictory stand in the reply statement from the stand taken in the plaint with respect to the nature of the property in the hands of one Rangasamy. In the plaint, a stand was taken to the effect that the ‘A’ schedule property was the exclusive property of Rangasamy. However, while filing the reply statement, a stand was taken to the effect that the ‘A’ schedule property is a joint family property.
5. The Court below also found that those facts, which have been stated in the written statement, can always be refuted/denied in the course of evidence and it is not necessary to file a reply statement in this regard.
6. The reasoning given by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, cannot be allowed to take contradictory stands by way of filing a reply statement. In any event, there is no mandate for the petitioner/plaintiff to file a reply statement for the written statement and those facts stated in the written statement can always be denied/refuted at the time of evidence by putting appropriate question to the witnesses. Hence, the impugned order is sustained. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.5564 of 2026 09-10-2026