Madras High Court
K.Kalyanasundaram vs K.G.Padmanabhakurup(Died) on 29 October, 2025
CRP.No.5183 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.5183 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.26154 of 2025
K.Kalyanasundaram,
S/o.V.Kandasamy Pillai ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.G.Padmanabhakurup(Died)
1. P.Brindha
2. P.Thushara
3. P.Thulasi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated
02.09.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.7698 of 2012 on the file
of Learned II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing the
I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.7698 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prakash
******
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 12:23:46 pm )
CRP.No.5183 of 2025
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed
by the Court below dismissing the petition filed by the
petitioner/defendant seeking to receive additional written statement.
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction
directing the petitioner to remove the fitting and accessories installed by
him in the suit property. The said suit was decreed and aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.129 and 219 of 2018. The
Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Claiming, the
appellate Court granted liberty to file additional written statement, the
petitioner filed an application to receive the additional written statement.
3. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the
Appellate Court at the time of remand did not grant any opportunity to
the petitioner to file additional pleadings. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has come before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 12:23:46 pm )
remand order passed by the Appellate Court would submit that liberty
was granted to the petitioner to adduce further evidence and therefore, the
petitioner was constrained to file instant application to receive additional
written statement.
5. When no specific liberty was granted to the parties to file any
additional pleadings in the remand order, the petitioner would not be
entitled to file the same. Liberty was granted only to adduce further
evidence and no liberty was granted to file additional pleadings. In such
circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order
passed by the Court below.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2025
Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mp
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 12:23:46 pm )
mp
To
The Learned II Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 12:23:46 pm )
