Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2680/2026 of E.Jeevanantham Vs Uma Ananthi on 30 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2680 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011288152026}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13511 of 2026
E.Jeevanantham
...Petitioner
Vs.
Uma Ananthi
...Respondent
PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the impugned fair and decretal order dated 16.12.2025 made in I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.
352/2021 on the file of Learned Additional Sub Court, Pudukottai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner
: Mr.VA.Shanmugaraj
*****
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed in IA.No.2 of 2025 in OS.No.352 of 2021 on the file
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 of the Additional Sub Court, Pudukottai.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondent is the 2nd defendant. The petitioner filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction and declaration declaring the Settlement Deed dated 16.08.2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second defendant has filed her written statement and she has not disputed the possession of the plaintiff in her written statement. The suit is posted for trial and the plaintiff’s evidence was also over. Now the respondent/2nd defendant came forward with the petition to file her additional written statement along with counterclaim against the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for declaration and recovery of possession, which is not maintainable and the respondent has also not denied the petitioner’s possession, and now in order to fill up the lacuna, the respondent filed this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. But the trial Court allowed the petition, which is perverse and prayed to set
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 aside the order passed by the trial Court by allowing this civil revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent to the suit, the respondent has encroached upon the property and is residing in the suit property. Therefore, the respondent has falsely stated that she was already in possession of the property and the petitioner also denied the right of the respondent /2nd defendant over the suit property. Therefore, the respondent wants to file a counter claim seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.
6. Originally the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction and declaration declaring the Settlement Deed dated 16.08.2017 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and also not to encumber the property to third parties. The respondent has filed her written statement on
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 20.04.2023. Thereafter, when the suit was posted for trial, the respondent has filed a petition seeking permission to file a counterclaim on 18.08.2025. The trial Court, taking into consideration that even after filing the written statement, if it is essential to decide the issues, the Court could allow the defendants to file an additional written statement. It is further contended that the limitation is also not barred for the claim. In order to curtail further delay, the trial Court allowed the petition and the merits of the case would be decided at the time of conclusion of the trial. This Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court and there is no merit in the petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 To The Additional Sub Court, Pudukottai.
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2680 of 2026 30.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )