S.Selvaraj v. C.Selvaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.6644 of 2026 S.Selvaraj (died) S/o. Samy Nadar 1.S.Dhayas Raj S/o Selvaraj, Having Business at GNT Road 245 SDRCycle Stand Naravarikuppam Village Redhills, Chennai 600 050

2. S.Selvarani W/o Late T.S.Selvaraj No.37, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052

3. S.Chrispin Raj S/o T.S.Selvaraj No.37, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052

4. Clinton Raj S/o Collins Raj, No.3, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052

5. Jaba Raj S/o Collins Raj, No.3, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052

6. Febsilin Joshua S/o Kinsraj, No.43, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052

7. Esther D/o Kinsraj,Grand D/o Late

T.S.Selvaraj No.43, Nehru Street, Kamaraj Nagar Redhills, Chennai 600052 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. C.Selvaraj S/o.Chidabaram, no.21/229, V.O.C.Street, Mondiyamman nagar, Redhills, Thiruvallur District Chennai 600052 Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Order dated 05.02.2026 passed in IA.No.7 of 2026 in OS.No.33 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri. For Petitioner(s):

MR.N .R.Anantha Rama Krishna For Respondent(s):

Mr.E.Prabu

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No.7 of 2026 in O.S. No.33 of 2025, on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri. defendants 2 to 4, 7 and 8 have preferred this revision.

2. Before the trial Court, the defendants filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC to receive an additional written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The defendants contended that certain pleadings with regard to wrongful inclusion relating to the plaintiff's sale deed were not properly stated earlier, and therefore it was

necessary to file an additional written statement. The application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff stating that the case had already been posted for defendants' evidence and the defendants sought to file an additional written statement after a long delay of about 12 years. He also pointed out that after filing of proof affidavit on 04.08.2025, nearly 60 hearings were granted for cross-examination of PW-1 and the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. Accepting the said contention, the trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Court ought to have granted an opportunity to file additional written statement by raising subsequent pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defendants had already filed the written statement and also two additional written statements earlier. Trial had already commenced, PW-1 was examined, and sufficient opportunities were given. He further submitted that the defendants are tenants and are only attempting to prolong the proceedings.

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the original written statement was filed long back and thereafter two additional written statements were also

filed. The pleadings already contain several defences relating to the sale deed and alleged tenancy. The suit itself is of the year 2014 and has been pending for several years. Even after commencement of trial and after several hearings, the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. The conduct of the defendants clearly shows that they intend to drag on the proceedings, which cannot be encouraged.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Both parties are directed to cooperate for the trial proceedings, and the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri

To 1.The District Munsif, Ponneri.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri 18-03-2026