Madras High Court
CRP/6355/2026 of R.Balakumar Vs M.Natarajan on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No. 6355 of 2026
and
CMP NO. 27382 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012306212026}
1. R.Balakumar
S/o. Ramasamy
2. R.Raja
S/o. Ramasamy
..Petitioners
Vs
1. M.Natarajan
S/o. Muruga Gounder
2. Veeramani
W/o. Krishnasamy Gounder
3. Rajeswari
D/o. Krishnasamy Gounder
4. Jothimani
D/o. Krishnasamy Gounder
5. Sandhamani
D/o. Krishnasamy Gounder
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in IA No.9 of 2026 in O.S.
No.73 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif, Pollachi.
For Petitioners :
Mr. R.Kannan
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 fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2026 made in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.73 of 2016, wherein the application filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC to receive additional written statement came to be allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the material available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order..
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2016 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants filed the original written statement in the year 2016. Thereafter, the case was at the stage of trial and P.W.1 had been cross-examined. At that stage, an application came to be filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC for filing additional written statement. This application came to be allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the additional written statement has been filed by the 3rd defendant only with a view to drag on the proceedings and has attempted to bring in facts.
5. On carefully considering the original written statement and the additional written statement that has now been filed by the 3rd defendant, it is seen that the 3rd defendant has brought in certain facts, which came to his knowledge only later regarding the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2026 and also regarding the conveyance of the property when the suit was pending in favour of one Narayanasamy.
6. The Court below properly applied its mind while dealing with the application and came to a conclusion that the defendants must be given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves in the suit.
7. If any issue arises out of the additional written statement, the Court below can also frame additional issues and the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to handle the additional issues that may arise for consideration by virtue of filing additional written statement.
8. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference from this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed and accordingly, this Civil Revision
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. mp Petition stands dismissed. There shall be a direction to the District Munsif Court, Pollachi to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2016 within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mp To
1. The District Munsif Court, Pollachi.
2. V.R.Section High Court of Madras.