CRP/1828/2025 of G.SELVARAJ Vs TAMARAISELAVI on 29 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 01-03-2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 24.02.2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, wherein the application filed by first respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint and application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed eighth defendant came to be allowed 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 first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2020 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 7/36th share in the suit properties. The contest was more focused on the first item of the suit property, which was described as Survey No.18/5A3A. The case was at the stage of examination of witness on the side of first respondent/plaintiff and PW-1 had already been cross-examined on the side of defendants.

4. The first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed eighth defendant, who is the son of the seventh defendant on the ground that the seventh defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of the eighth defendant on 01.09.2017. The first respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking for the following amendment: @1/ tHf;Fiu Fwe;jiyg;gpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp bgaUf;F gpwF

(8) fiyr;bry;td;’(t/k/1-2024y;’24/02/2025y;’Vw;gl;l cj;jputpd;go nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;) vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/ 2/ tHf;Fiu beLe;jiyg;gpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp tpyhrj;jpw;F gpwF

8) ,e;ePjpkd;w epytiu mjpfhu tuk;gpw;Fl;gl;l. tpUj;jhryk;’tl;lk;.

bghpafhg;ghd;Fsk;’kJuh gp/nf/tPbul;of;Fg;gk;’fpuhkj;jpy;.

vz;/13-4y;’trpf;Fk; bry;tuhR Fkhuh;. ,e;J. gaph;. Rkhh;’22 taJs;s fiyr;bry;td;’(t/k/1-2024y;’24/02/2025y;’Vw;gl;l cj;jputpd;go nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;) ? vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/ 3/ tHf;Fiu gj;jp 5?f;F gpwF 5(m) Mf nrh;f;f ntz;oaJ

5(m) tHf;F Kjypdr;’brhj;ij 7k ; vjph;thjp mtuJ kfdhd 8k;’vjph;thjpf;F mWjpahtzk;’vGjp bfhLj;Js;sjhf vjph;tHf;Fiuapy;’bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ 7k; vjph;thjpf;F tHf;F 1tJ,dr;brhj;ij fpiuak; bfhLj;jth;fSf;F KG chpika[k;’fpilahJ/ 7k; vjph;thjp tHf;F Kjy;’brhj;ij brhj;J RthjPdk; milatpy;iy/ gpd;dpl;l tptfhu';fis jtph;f;f 8k; vjph;thjpia tHf;fpy;’jug;gpduhf nrh;f;f t/k/1-2024 jhf;fy;’bra;ag;gl;L

mk;kD

24/02/2025y; mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ/

mjdog;gilapy;’8k; vjph;thjp ,t;tHf;fpy; jug;gpduhf nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;/ 4/ tHf;F 1tJ,dr;brhj;ij jw;nghJs;sij ePf;fp tpl;L fPH;f;fz;lthW jpUj;jk; bra;a ntz;Lk;/ m/g[/hp/r/18-5V3gp?y;’0/51/0 Vh;rpy;’fPH;g[wk;’55 brz;l; rf;Fge;jp ikdh;’mUd;Fkhh;’epyj;jpw;Fk;’(bjw;F)

Xilf;Fk; (nkw;F). ghijf;Fk;’(tlf;F). 7k;’vjph;thjp fpiuak; bgw;w 74 brz;ow;Fk; (fpHf;F) kjpg;g[ U:/95.475?00 5/ tHf;Fiu cga thjpfs;’tpyhrj;jpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp tpyhrj;jpw;F gpwF

8) fiyr;bry;td; j-bg/bry;tuhR ? vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/@ Vz;/13-4. gp/nf/tPbul;of;Fg;gk;. bghpafhg;ghd;Fsk; kJuh tpUj;jhryk; tl;lk; flY}h; khtl;lk;/

5. The Court below passed an order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 by allowing the application and by impleading the proposed eighth defendant as a party to the proceedings based on the settlement deed executed by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant. However, insofar as the amendment application is concerned, the Court below did not pass considered order and the Court below had merely passed an order to the effect that already the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed and hence, this application is also allowed.

6. The above procedure adopted by the Court below, on the face of it, is illegal. The crux of the issue involved in the present case is as to whether the property settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant was part of the suit property. As per the plaint, the first item of the suit property was shown as Survey No.18/5A3A. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020, a stand has been taken to the effect that Survey No.18/5A3B is part of the first item of the suit property. However, while claiming for amendment, the first respondent/plaintiff wants to delete the first item of the suit property, which is Survey No.18/5A3A and wants to show Survey No.18/5A3B as the first item of the suit property along with boundaries. The Court below has not even applied its mind as to whether the property settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant formed part of the suit property. The Court below also did not apply its mind as to whether Survey No.18/5A3B is part of Survey No.18/5A3A. Thus, the Court below merely went by the settlement deed executed by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant without finding as to which property was actually settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant. The Court below presumed that the property settled in favour of the eighth defendant also forms part of the suit property. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court.

7. The Court below has allowed the application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC even without any discussion by stating that since the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been allowed, as a consequence, the amendment application also stands allowed. On the face of it, such an order passed by the Court below is illegal and perverse.

8. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 01-03-2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 24.02.2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam and the Court below is directed to apply its mind to the applications filed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 and 2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 and after affording opportunity to both parties, pass orders in these interlocutory applications in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any observations made in the present revisions will not have any bearing when the Court below deals with the applications afresh on merits.

9. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2020, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025 29-10-2026