Dismissed¶37

Radhakrishnan, v. Santhi

Madras HC9 Mar 2026CRP(MD)/625/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; V. Lakshminarayanan J.; C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026 decided 09.03.2026; amendment of written statement Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; fresh case taking plaintiff by surprise; reply statement or replication; counter claim permission Order 8 Rule 6B CPC; cause of action arose earlier; plea of ownership in written statement dated 28.04.2025; counter claim and suit by same party not barred; partition suit O.S.No.19 of 2025 Nagercoil; clubbing of suits by transfer petition O.S.No.44 of 2025; Article 227 revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026) dismissed with no costs; the Trial Court's orders allowing amendment of the written statement and permission to file the counter claim stand; the connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.2915 of 2026 is closed.

Radhakrishnan, Vs Santhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.12.2025 of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil allowing I.A.No.4 of 2025 (amendment of the written statement by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2025) is liable to be set aside, i.e., whether the amendment is barred by Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

An amendment to a written statement cannot be thrown out under Order 6 Rule 17 unless it seeks to introduce a fresh case in its entirety which would take the plaintiff by surprise; the pleas sought to be introduced here do not prejudice the plaintiff, who may instead apply for leave to file a reply statement or replication; the written statement does not come within the bar of Order 6 Rule 17, and the Revision against the order allowing the amendment is not admitted.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The defendant's counter claim for a declaration that the suit schedule property belongs to her is not barred by Order 8 Rule 6B, since the cause of action for the counter claim arose much earlier and the plea of ownership had already been raised in her written statement filed on 28.04.2025; the contention that Order 8 Rule 6B is a bar does not appeal to the Court.

¶32

Key takeaways

There is no law which states that a party who files a counter claim cannot file a suit; the plea that the respondent, being the second plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2025 (a suit for partition and separate possession), cannot file a counter claim is untenable, and none of the bars under Order 8 Rule 6B is attracted.ratio¶36
Since O.S.No.44 of 2025 relates to Survey No.2-45 of Nagercoil South Village (Item No.1 of its schedule) apart from two other properties, if the plaintiff is so advised, it is open to him to move a transfer petition and club the two suits.obiter¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2025 (partition suit) against the order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil dated 04.12.2025 allowing I.A.No.4 of 2025 (amendment of written statement by the 2nd defendant) and I.A.No.5 of 2025 (permission to file a counter claim for declaration of ownership of the suit property). HELD: (i) Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, an amendment to a written statement cannot be rejected unless it introduces an entirely fresh case that would take the plaintiff by surprise; the pleas here caused no prejudice, and the plaintiff's remedy was to seek leave to file a reply statement or replication; (ii) the counter claim was not barred by Order 8 Rule 6B CPC since the cause of action arose much earlier and the plea of ownership had already been raised in the defendant's written statement dated 28.04.2025; (iii) there is no law that a party who files a counter claim cannot also file a suit, so the respondent's position as second plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2025 was no bar; the plaintiff was left free to move a transfer petition to club the two suits. Revisions dismissed with no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.2915 of 2026 closed.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2915 of 2026

¶7

C.R.P.(MD)No.625 of 2026:

¶8

Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

Santhi ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass

¶13

C.R.P.(MD)No.626 of 2026:

¶14

Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶15

vs.

¶16

Santhi ... Respondent

¶17

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass

¶22

¶23

COMMON O R D E R

¶24

The Plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Nagercoil in I.A.No.4 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025, in O.S.No.19 of 2025, dated 04.12.2025.

¶25

O.S.No.19 of 2025 is a suit presented for partition of three shares of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property. In the said suit, summons were served. The defendants have also filed a written statement.

¶26

Pending the suit, an application was taken out in I.A.No.4 of 2025. By this application, the defendant had sought certain amendments to the written statement. This application was opposed by the plaintiff stating that the defendant was trying to create false records through means of filing an amendment application. The learned Trial Judge allowed the application permitting the 2^nd defendant to amend the written statement. Hence, this Revision.

¶27

Heard Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass for the Civil Revision Petitioner.

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026

¶31

The scope of Order 6 Rule 17, whether it relates to the amendment to the plaint or written statement is settled. The defendant, unless and until, seeks to introduce a fresh case, in its entirety which would take the plaintiff by surprise, the Court should not throw the amendment application out. The pleas which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment application do not in any manner prejudice the plaintiff. If the plaintiff feels that a new case is sought to be projected in a suit of the year 2025, it is always open to him to file an application seeking permission of the Court to file a reply statement or a replication. As the present written statement is not one which comes within the bar of Order 6, Rule 17, I am not inclined to admit the Revision.

¶32

Insofar as I.A.No.05 of 2025 is concerned, it is a petition filed by the defendant seeking permission of the Court to file a counter claim. In the said counter claim, she seeks for a declaration that the suit schedule mentioned property belongs to her. A perusal of the written statement filed by her on 28.04.2025 shows that the plea that she is the owner of the property had already been raised by her. The cause of action for seeking the counter claim arose much earlier. Hence, the contention that Order 8 Rule 6B is a bar does not appeal to me.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026

¶36

The further plea that, since she is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2025, which is a suit for partition and separate possession and hence, she cannot file a counter claim, is untenable. There is no law, which states that a party, who files a counter claim, cannot file a suit.

¶37

In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the plaint in O.S.No.44 of 2025 for perusal of this Court. A perusal of the schedule of the property shows that Survey No.2-45 of Nagercoil South Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanniyakumari Distrct is Item No.1 of the schedule property. Apart from the said property, O.S.No.44 of 2025 relates to two other properties. If the plaintiff is so advised, it is for him to move a transfer petition and club these two suits. As the counter claim has been filed on a matter, which has arisen soon after the filing of the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2025 and as I do not find any of the bar under Order 8 Rule 6B, being attracted, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

Index :Yes / No 09.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Nsr

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.625 and 626 of 2026

¶42

To:

¶43

The Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.