Madras High Court
Himanshu Pathak vs M/S.Star Health And Allied Insurance on 13 October, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
2025:MHC:2434
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
and
CMP Nos. 23626 & 23629 of 2025
Himanshu Pathak
Appellant(s)
in both OSAs
Vs
1.M/s.Star Health and Allied Insurance
Company Limited
Having its registered Office at No.1,
New Tank Street, ValluvarKottam High
Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory /
Power of Attorney Amarjeet Shanuja,
Chief Information Security Officer.
2.Akshit
Respondent(s)
in both OSAs
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
OSA No. 317 of 2025
PRAYER
Original Side Appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original
Side Rules, 1994 and Clause 15 of Letters Patent of 1865, praying to set
aside the order dated 30.04.2025 in Application No.1541 of 2025 in CS No. 1
of 2023.
OSA No. 318 of 2025
PRAYER
Original Side Appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original
Side Rules, 1994 and Clause 15 of Letters Patent of 1865, praying to set
aside the order dated 30.04.2025 in Application No.1542 of 2025 in CS No. 1
of 2023.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj
For Mr.Vaibhav Rangarajan
Venkatesh (in both OSAs)
For Respondent(s): Mr.Sivathanu Mohan
For M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam
and Associates For R1
(in both OSAs)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present original side appeals have been instituted to assail the
order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Application Nos.1541 and 1542 of 2025 in
C.S.No.1 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
st
2. The 1 respondent has instituted a suit for permanent injunction and
st
damages. The 1 defendant in the suit filed applications seeking leave to file
additional written statement and additional documents in support of the
additional written statement in the suit. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues
and dismissed the applications, which resulted in filing of the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that
additional written statement is filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that
the alleged protective data claimed by the plaintiff himself is very much
available in public domain and it has been reported that the representatives of
the plaintiff have sold data to an online hacker. In support of the said
contention, certain documents from 2024 have been filed with the additional
written statement.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) By LRs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
and Another vs. P.Rajkumar , which held as follows:
“8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a
second opportunity to the defendant to produce the
documents which ought to have been produced in the
court along with the written statement, with the leave of
the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While
there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be
granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the
defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of
justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be
allowed to come in the way of the court while doing
substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not
seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts
must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than
relying upon procedural and technical violation. We
should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a
journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice
and the court is required to take appropriate steps to
thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.
Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an
application is made for production of the documents
under sub-rule (3).”
1 2020 INSC 593
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
st
5. The learned counsel for the 1 respondent would oppose by stating
that the documents, including newspaper articles, are inadmissible evidences.
That apart, examination of PW1 has commenced and is at the stage of cross-
examination. The appellant had also agreed for commencement of trial and
participated in the examination of witnesses. Therefore, the present appeal is
to be rejected.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the
parties to the lis.
7. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Trial Court
dismissed the applications mainly on the ground that the appellant seeks to
bring on record a further illegal act committed by a third person to defend
himself. The illegal acts committed by the third person cannot be taken as an
advantage by the appellant to defend his case.
8. However, the Trial Court has not considered the admissibility or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
inadmissibility of the documents and the pleadings made by the appellant in
the additional written statement and the affidavit filed in support of other
applications. The averments in the additional written statement are in
connection with the pleadings made in the original written statement. That
apart, all the documents are not newspaper publications, and certain other
documents have also been filed.
9. It is between the parties to defend their case before the Trial Court at
the appropriate stage. Trial has just commenced and PW1 has been
examined. Cross-examination is yet to commence. Under these
circumstances, no prejudice would be caused if the additional written
statement is filed by the defendant is allowed in the suit.
10. In the case of Subramanian and three Others vs. Jayaraman ,
the learned Single Judge of this Court has made an observation with
reference to the additional written statements to be filed in a suit under Order
VIII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code and the said paragraphs reads as under:
2 1999 (III) CTC 52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
“9. It is not the intention of the legislature that no
pleading subsequent to the written statement should be
allowed other than for reasons given therein. But the
intention is that without the leave of the Court, no
pleading subsequent to the written statement shall be
presented. Hence, it goes without saying that the
subsequent statement or additional statement could be
filed only with the leave of the Court on such terms, as
the Court thinks fit. The approach of Law in permitting the
Court to grant leave in such cases is positive. But, the
Court while granting the leave could direct the petitioner
to comply with certain terms that the Court thinks fit and
hence absolutely there is no impediment or hurdle or
legal barrier putforth by the Rule in allowing any
additional statement subsequent to the written statement
and the only shot provided in the arms of the Court for
granting leave is that it could allow the application on
such terms as it thinks fit. The same power could also be
suo motu exercised by the Court as per the concluding
part of the Rule. The Rule has been liberally construed
so far as the Court granting the leave to present such
additional statements and discretion is given to the Court
either to allow or to reject and while allowing it could do
the same on such terms as the Court thinks fit.
Therefore, it could be safely concluded that in all such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
cases, wherein the defendant approaches the Court with
an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code praying to grant leave, Courts are
expected to be liberal in granting the leave but of course
on terms as the Court thinks fit in the circumstances of
the individual case.”
11. This Court is of the considered view that preventing parties to the
suit to defend the case effectively need not be curtailed. All parties must be
afforded with full opportunity to defend their respective cases before the Court,
unless the pleadings or documents sought to be filed are absolutely
unconnected or irrelevant regarding the issues in the suit.
12. In the present case, the Trial Court has not made any observation
regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of the documents filed by the
appellant or the averments made in the additional written statement.
Therefore, there is no impediment for granting leave to file additional written
statement along with the documents. In the event of allowing the applications,
no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
13. Contrarily, the parties can effectively adjudicate the suit on merits
and in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances, the
impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Application Nos.1541 and 1542
of 2025 in C.S.No.1 of 2023, is set aside and the Original Side Appeals stand
allowed. The respondents are permitted to file reply to the additional written
statement along with the documents, if any. The connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.)
13-10-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Jeni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
Jeni
OSA Nos. 317 & 318 of
13-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:08 pm )
