CRP(MD)/2581/2026 of Muthammal (Died), 1. Saroja Vs Balasubramaniam on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.179 of 2018, which was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as against the defendants.

2. When the said suit was pending, the first plaintiff died, and her legal heir was impleaded. Thereafter, the second defendant also died, and his legal heirs were impleaded.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was partitioned between Thangavel Nayakkar and Subramaniya Nayakkar in the year 1960. Thangavel Nayakkar was the husband of the first plaintiff, whereas Subramaniya Nayakkar was the father of defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently, Thangavel Nayakkar executed a registered Will dated 28.12.1979 in favour of the first plaintiff,

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

bequeathing the suit property to her. The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere with the first plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Consequently, the first plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit seeking a declaration of her title to the suit property and a consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant also died, and his legal heirs, namely defendants 3 to 6, were impleaded as parties in the suit. In the meantime, the first defendant filed I.A.No. 4 of 2024 seeking permission to file an additional written statement. The petitioners contended that the suit was instituted in the year 2018 and that the written statement had already been filed on 26.09.2019. The suit was thereafter posted for trial on 04.11.2023. The evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was completed, and the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs were also cross-examined by the defendants. When the suit was posted for the defendants' side evidence, the first defendant came forward with the present application seeking permission to file an additional written statement.

5. The plaintiffs opposed the said application contending that the proposed additional written statement contains pleas inconsistent with and contrary to the

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

stand taken in the earlier written statement. It was further contended that the application was filed at a belated stage, after the completion of the plaintiffs' evidence and cross-examination of their witnesses, and only when the matter was posted for the defendants' evidence. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the first defendant cannot be permitted to introduce a new and inconsistent defence at this stage, and the application seeking permission to file an additional written statement is liable to be dismissed.

6. The plaintiffs filed a detailed counter opposing the said application. It was specifically contended that the facts and circumstances which the defendants now seek to introduce by way of the additional written statement were well within their knowledge even prior to the institution of the suit. It was further contended that the plaintiffs had already been examined and that their witnesses had been cross-examined by the defendants. At that stage, the defendants sought to introduce an additional written statement containing new pleas, without affording the plaintiffs an effective opportunity to meet the said pleas and, if necessary, to further cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses. According to the plaintiffs, the application was filed only with a view to protract and delay the proceedings. However, the Trial Court, without properly considering the detailed objections raised by the plaintiffs, allowed the application by relying upon the judgment in Sivakumar and another v.

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

Josephine Vayalet Rani and another, in C.R.P. (PD) (MD) Nos.252 and 253 of 2001. The Trial Court also permitted the defendants to mark the documents, subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the plaintiffs.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the respondent/first defendant cannot be permitted to introduce any additional documents or seek any amendment, deletion, or inclusion of pleadings after the commencement of the trial, particularly when the proposed additional written statement contains pleas inconsistent with those taken in the earlier written statement. It is further contended that permitting such inconsistent pleas at this belated stage would materially alter the nature and scope of the defence and, in effect, change the entire cause of action involved in the suit. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiffs' evidence has already been completed and the witnesses have been cross-examined on the basis of the pleadings already on record. Permitting the respondent to introduce new and inconsistent pleas at this stage would seriously prejudice the petitioners and deprive them of an effective opportunity to meet the newly introduced case and, if necessary, further cross-examine the witnesses. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and that appropriate interim protection/stay be granted in the interest of justice.

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2008 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34411 of 2025). However, this Court is of the view that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The principles laid down therein cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of the case on hand, having regard to the nature of the pleadings sought to be introduced, the stage at which the application was filed, and the circumstances under which the additional written statement was sought to be brought on record.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

10. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the first defendant had already filed his written statement as early as on 26.09.2019. Though the application has been filed at a belated stage, this Court finds that the proposed additional written statement does not introduce any new plea or an inconsistent defence. The matters sought to be brought on record are, in substance, only clarifications of the existing pleadings, coupled with a reference to the revenue records in support of the defence already taken. Therefore, the same cannot, at this stage,

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

be construed as introducing a new or inconsistent case on the part of the first defendant. It is true that the application has been filed after the commencement of the trial. However, mere delay by itself cannot be a ground to reject an application seeking amendment or introduction of further pleadings, if the proposed pleadings do not alter the nature and character of the defence and no serious prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

11. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to allow either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, on such terms as may be just. However, the proviso to Rule 17 provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The object of the said proviso is to prevent belated amendments which introduce a new case or cause prejudice to the opposite party after the trial has commenced. In the present case, having regard to the nature of the proposed additional pleadings and the fact that they are intended only to clarify the existing defence and refer to the relevant revenue records, this Court is of the view that the proposed pleadings cannot be said to introduce a new or inconsistent defence so as to fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or prejudice the petitioners.

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

12. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the petitioners sought permission to file the additional written statement before commencing their evidence. Though the application was filed after the completion of the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs, the reason stated by the respondent is that they could not obtain the relevant documents earlier and, therefore, were unable to produce the same and set out the necessary particulars in their defence. The documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent have also been produced along with the application. On perusal, it is seen that the documents comprise registered documents, revenue records and other connected records. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the application was filed after the completion of the plaintiffs' evidence cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to reject the application. Therefore, considering the nature of the documents produced, the explanation offered for the delay, and the fact that the petitioners' evidence is yet to commence, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be afforded to the parties to place their defence before the Court. Any prejudice that may be caused to the petitioners can be adequately safeguarded by granting them an opportunity to file their reply, if necessary, and to further cross- examine the witnesses, if the additional pleadings warrant such an opportunity. Hence, this Court is of the view that permitting the first defendant to place the additional pleadings and documents on record is necessary for effectively

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

determining the real question in controversy between the parties, particularly when the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property.

13. Considering the nature of the pleadings sought to be introduced and the documents relied upon by the first defendant, the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application. This Court finds that the order passed by the Trial Court is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is also relevant to note that the Trial Court has permitted the documents to be received subject to proof and relevancy. The petitioners/plaintiffs have also been afforded an opportunity to meet the case of the first defendant and to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of the additional pleadings and documents. Though the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs has already been completed, the petitioners are at liberty, if so warranted, to seek reopening of their evidence and recall of the concerned witness for the limited purpose of clarifying the matters arising out of the additional pleadings and documents, in accordance with law.

14. In view of the above, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned order

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

does not warrant any interference and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

To

1. The Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )

CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026

R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2581 of 2026 18-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:12:28 pm )