Dismissed¶45

Rathinammal (Died) Mayilammal (Died) Rajanbabu v. Lakshmi

Madras HC7 Oct 2025CRP/2859/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRP No.2859 of 2025; CMP No.16181 of 2025; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition; Subordinate Court Gudiyatham Vellore District; O.S.No.101 of 2013; I.A.No.4 of 2024; order dated 01.04.2025; reply statement; additional written statement; additional issue framed 04.09.2024; ex parte order set aside; partition suit; dispute between mother and son; PW1 cross-examination; opportunity to adduce evidence; no reason to interfere; CRP dismissed; no costs; connected CMP closed; M.Jothiraman J.; decision date 07-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below allowing I.A.No.4 of 2024. ¶44

Rathinammal (Died) Mayilammal (Died) Rajanbabu Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.04.2025 of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham allowing I.A.No.4 of 2024 (permitting the respondent/plaintiff to file a reply statement to the additional written statement) should be interfered with / set aside.

¶31

Court's answer

There is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below allowing I.A.No.4 of 2024.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

As the partition suit involves a dispute between mother and son, an opportunity may be provided to the parties to adduce evidence so that the respondent/plaintiff can put forth her case.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — CRP No.2859 of 2025 and CMP No.16181 of 2025 (Madras High Court, decided 07-10-2025, M.Jothiraman J.) — revision petitioner (third defendant, Rajanbabu) challenged the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham's order dated 01.04.2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013, a partition suit involving a dispute between mother and son, whereby the respondent/plaintiff (Lakshmi) was permitted to file a reply statement to the additional written statement filed by the third defendant. Context: deaths of first defendant Rathinammal and second defendant Mayilammal led to addition of defendants 2 and 3 and amendment of the plaint; plaintiff (PW1) was partly cross-examined; the Court below, after setting aside the petitioner's ex parte order in the I.A., had already framed additional issue based on the reply statement filed on 04.09.2024, and allowed the application to give the plaintiff an opportunity to put forth her case. Petitioner argued the reply statement came at the fag end of proceedings when PW1's cross-examination was almost over and additional issues would let in fresh evidence contrary to earlier evidence. Held: no reason to interfere with the Court below's order; opportunity may be provided to the parties to adduce evidence. Civil revision petition dismissed, no costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

¶1

CRP No.2859 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

CRP No.2859 of 2025 and CMP No.16181 of 2025

¶7

Rathinammal (Died) Mayilammal (Died)

¶8

Rajanbabu S/o.Late Appakili, Arasamaram Street, Melpatti Village and Post, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District.

¶9

Petitioner(s)/3^rd Defendant

¶10

¶11

Lakshmi

¶12

W/o.Appakili, D/o.Late Muthappa Gounder Lakshmiannalpuram Village, Melpatti Post, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District.

¶13

Respondent(s)/Plaintiff

¶14

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶15

India to set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham,

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRP No.2859 of 2025

¶19

Vellore District.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Sumitra

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.A.Ravindran

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, the revision petitioner/third defendant has filed the present civil revision petition.

¶24

The suit is filed for partition. During the pendency of the suit,

¶25

the first defendant/Rathinammal died and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3

¶26

were added as parties to the suit. Subsequently, the second defendant/Mayilammal also died and the plaint was amended. The revision petitioner/third defendant has filed an additional written statement. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, was crossexamined in part by the revision petitioner/third defendant and the case was posted for continuation of cross-examination of PW1. In order to give reply

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

CRP No.2859 of 2025

¶30

to the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant, the respondent/plaintiff has chosen to file an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013. Upon hearing either side, the Court below vide order dated 01.04.2025 allowed the application on the ground that based on the reply statement filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the Court below has already framed additional issues and also in order to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to put forth her case.

¶31

Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/third defendant has preferred the present petition.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/third defendant would submit that the Court below has failed to consider the fact that the reply statement has been filed only in the fag end of the proceedings, inasmuch as, the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff by the revision petition/third defendant was almost over. Further, he would submit that framing of additional issues would only envisage the respondent/plaintiff to let in fresh evidence completely contrary to the

¶33

Page 3 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP No.2859 of 2025

¶36

evidence already let in by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the reasoning given by the Court below is not convincing and unsustainable.

¶37

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

respondent/plaintiff would submit that the entire allegations stated in the additional written statement were denied by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has to file necessary reply statement against the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant for complete adjudication. He would further submit that the pleadings stated in the reply statement are not stated in the plaint by mistake and oversight and those facts are essential to prove the case of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶39

It is seen from the records that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a reply statement along with the application in I.A.No.4 of 2024. After setting aside the ex parte order of the revision petitioner/third defendant in the aforesaid I.A., the Court below has framed additional issue based on the reply statement filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 04.09.2024 itself. The

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

CRP No.2859 of 2025

¶43

suit is filed for partition, in that, the dispute is between the mother and son and therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to put forth her case, an opportunity may be provided to the parties to adduce evidence.

¶44