Madras High Court
K.Murugan vs M.Rajagopal on 2 June, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.7527 of 2025
S.Kasilingam (died)
1.K.Murugan
2.K.Senthilvel
3.K.Gopalakrishnan
4.M.Anand ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.Rajagopal
2.M.Malaisamy
M.Subramanian (Died)
3.M.Balakrishnan @ Ravi
4.M.Velmurugan
5.N.Vijayakumar
6.M.Rajagopal
S.Thangasamy (Died)
T.Balasubramanian (Died)
7.T.Murugesan
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
8.T.Mariappan
T.Shanmuganathan (Died)
T.Chandrasekar (Died)
P.V.S.Nataraja Konar (Died)
9.N.Krishnamoorthy
10.N.Murugesan
N.Baskaran (Died)
S.Mani (Died)
11.M.Pradeepkumar
12.Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple,
Alagarkoil,represented through
its Executive Officer,
having office at Alagarkoil,
Madurai.
13.G.Srinivasan
14.M.Kannan ...Respondents
(Respondent Nos.13 and 14 notice not necessary)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.03.2025 passed in
I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Melur, Madurai District and allow the CRP.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lakshmanan
For R1 to R9,
& R11 : Mr.N.Murugesan
For R10 : Mr.N.Madhava Govindhan
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
For R12 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking orders to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 24.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.363 of
2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, Madurai District.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.363 of 2004
before the learned District Munsif, Melur, claiming declaration that the
respondent Nos.1 to 11 and respondent Nos.13 and 14 and the petitioners are
entitled to perform Mandagapadi in the suit property and consequentially
restraining the petitioners and respondent Nos.13 and 14 herein from interfering
with the rights of respondent Nos.1 to 11 to perform the Mandagapadi during
the Chithirai festival in the suit property.
3. The respondent Nos.1 to 11 are the plaintiffs. The petitioners and the
respondent Nos.12 to 14 are the defendants.
4. Pending suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.8 of 2025 before the learned
District Munsif, Melur, to receive an additional written statement on their side.
The said petition was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Melur on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
24.03.2025. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed this present
petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners denied the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 11, stating that the suit
property is their ancestral property as per the title deed. Hence, respondent Nos.
1 to 11 cannot claim the relief as a matter of right. However, respondent Nos.1
to 11 attempted to utilize the suit property for commercial purpose. Since the
petitioners' father, viz., S.Kasilingam, who was the defendant in the suit,
subsequently died, thereafter, the petitioners were impleaded as parties and even
prior to the suit, the petitioners' father cancelled the permissive right of
respondent Nos.1 to 11 to participate in the Mandagapadi given by the
petitioners' grandfather and has sent an objection to the Kallagar Devasthanam
and the same was communicated to the second respondent herein.
5.(i). The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.
363 of 2004 under section 151 of C.P.C. before the trial Court to receive
additional written statement of the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C.
after filing of amended plaint. However, the said application was rejected on
the ground of delay and the delay was not properly explained in the affidavit.
Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
5.(ii). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the issue arose in the present petition is no longer res integra. He relies upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil. Appeal Nos.4148-4149 of
2009 in the case of Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhail Mulla. The
said decision was followed by this Court reported in 2024-4-L.W.924 in the
case of Lakshamma and another Vs. yasodhamma and another. Accordingly,
he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 11
would submit that, admittedly, the suit has been pending since the year 2004.
After a lapse of 21 years, the present application has been filed under Order 8
Rule 9 of CPC. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, and
the same does not warrant interference.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that this Court had already issued a direction to the trial Court to
dispose of the main suit. However, the said suit has not been disposed of till
date.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
9. Admittedly, the suit is pending from the year 2004. The present issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
before this Court pertains to the filing of the additional written statement, which
was rejected by the trial Court. The above said issue was dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civl. Appeal Nos.4148-4149 of 2009 in the
case of Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhail Mulla and the relevant
portion in the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the additional counter statement as
well as the original counter statement and the application for
fixation of fair rent and other materials on record, we are of
the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering
with the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Authorities in
the exercise of its revisional power. A plain reading of the
impugned order of the High Court would show that two
grounds were given by the High Court to reject the
application for acceptance of the additional counter
statement filed by the appellant. The first ground was that the
appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of an
additional counter statement when examination of P.W.1 was
already over. So far as this ground is concerned, we do not
find that delay is a ground for which the additional counter
statement could not be allowed, as it is well settled that mere
delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of
pleadings or filing of additional counter statement. At the
same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application
under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where
no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such
amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement
which could easily be compensated by cost. That apart, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
delay in filing the additional counter statement has been
properly explained by the appellant. The averments made in
the additional counter statement could not be raised by the
appellant earlier since the appellant was under the
impression that the lease agreement was destroyed in a fire
accident and that he incidentally discovered the lease files in
an old trunk only in October 1996 while he was cleaning the
house for Pooja celebration. This explanation, in our view,
cannot be rejected. Therefore, the first ground on which the
additional counter statement sought to be rejected by the
High Court in the exercise of its revisional power, in our
view, cannot be sustained. The second ground on which the
High Court had interfered with the concurrent orders of the
tribunal below in accepting the additional counter statement
was that a new plea was raised in the same in respect of
which there was no slightest basis in the original counter
statement filed by the appellant. According to the High Court,
the plea that vacant land was let out to the appellant is a
fundamental alteration of the pleadings already put forth by
the appellant and the appellant cannot be permitted to
introduce totally a new case. The additional counter
statement alleging that there was written agreement and that
the appellant is only a lessee of vacant site introduces totally
a new case which would totally displace the landlord. The
High Court held that such a new plea cannot be permitted to
be taken by permitting the appellant to file additional counter
statement. In our view, this is also not a ground for which the
High Court could interfere with the concurrent orders of the
Rent Control Tribunal and reject the application for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
permission to file additional counter statement. In our view,
even by filing an amendment or additional counter statement,
it is open to the appellant to add a new ground of defence or
substituting or altering the defence or even taking
inconsistent pleas in the counter statement as long as the
pleadings do not result in causing grave injustice and
irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or displacing him
completely. [See : Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran
Appaso Swami & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602]. Therefore, we are
unable to agree with the High Court on this ground as well. It
is also well settled that the courts should be more generous in
allowing the amendment of the counter statement of the
defendant then in the case of plaint. The High Court in its
impugned order has also observed that in order to file an
additional counter statement, it would be open to the
defendant to take inconsistent plea. The prayer for
acceptance of the additional counter statement was rejected
by the High Court on the ground that while allowing such
additional counter statement to be accepted, it has to be seen
whether it was expedient with reference to the circumstances
of the case to permit such a plea being put forward at that
stage. As noted herein earlier, the only ground on which the
High Court had rejected the acceptance of the additional
counter statement was (i) by filing of such additional counter
statement, the appellant was introducing a new case and (2)
the entire trial was to be reopened causing great prejudice to
the respondents whose examination was completed. It was
also observed by the High Court that the appellant cannot be
able to take such inconsistent plea by filing additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
counter statement after cross-examination of the appellant. In
our view, the High Court was in error in interfering with the
concurrent orders of the Rent Control Tribunal, as from the
fact stated we find that no prejudice was caused to the
respondents and even if some prejudice was caused that
could be compensated by cost. As noted herein earlier, the
appellant had already stated in his application for
acceptance of additional counter statement the reasons for
taking such new plea, viz., he could trace out the lease deed
pertaining to the lease only when he was cleaning the boxes.
The respondents have also not disputed as to the existence of
the lease deed only they are disputing the filing of the
additional counter statement at such a belated stage. This
being the position, we are of the view that even if the
examination of PW-1 or his cross- examination was over,
then also, it was open to the court to accept the additional
counter statement filed by the appellant by awarding some
cost against the appellant. It is also well settled that while
allowing additional counter statement or refusing to accept
the same, the court should only see that if such additional
counter statement is not accepted, the real controversy
between the parties could not be decided. As noted herein
earlier, by filing an additional counter statement in the
present case, in our view, would not cause injustice or
prejudice to the respondents but that would help the court to
decide the real controversy between the parties. In our view,
the High Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the
application for permission to file additional counter
statement as no prejudice could be caused to the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost.”
10. The above said decision was followed by this Court reported in
2024-4-L.W.924 in the case of Lakshamma and another Vs. Yasodhamma
and others and the relevant portion in the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“18.On a careful perusal of the judgments relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that when an
application is filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC and when the
trial had already commenced and the plaintiffs evidence has
been completed and in the absence of any pleading, not set
forth in the original written statement, may render such
evidence futail.”
11. On perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear that as per Order 8
Rule 9 of C.P.C., no pleadings subsequent to the filing of the written statement
shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and the Court may at any
time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the
parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.
12. As such under this provision, the discretion is vested in the Court to
permit the petitioners to file an additional written statement or not considering
the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that there is no dispute in the
contention that by bringing a new or additional or inconsistent plea by way of
filing an additional written statement, definitely the respondent Nos.1 to 11 may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
be put to serious prejudice and hardship. In the present case, the trial has not yet
been commenced. Further, it makes it clear that a mere delay is not a ground for
rejecting the application for filing additional written statement.
13. In view of the above discussion, the order order dated 24.03.2025
passed in I.A.No.8 of 2025 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Melur, Madurai District is set aside. The trial Court is directed to
accept the additional written statement from the petitioners and allow the parties
to let in evidence before the trial Court. The trial court is directed to dispose of
the suit in O.S.No.363 of 2004 within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.06.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
TSG
To
1.The District Munsif Court, Melur, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
TSG
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1511 of 2025
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:02:39 pm )
