CRP No.2859 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN CRP No.2859 of 2025 and CMP No.16181 of 2025 Rathinammal (Died) Mayilammal (Died) Rajanbabu S/o.Late Appakili, Arasamaram Street, Melpatti Village and Post, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District. Petitioner(s)/3rd Defendant Vs Lakshmi W/o.Appakili, D/o.Late Muthappa Gounder Lakshmiannalpuram Village, Melpatti Post, Pernambut Taluk, Vellore District. Respondent(s)/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 Vellore District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Sumitra For Respondent(s): Mr.K.A.Ravindran ORDER Challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, the revision petitioner/third defendant has filed the present civil revision petition. 2. The suit is filed for partition. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant/Rathinammal died and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 were added as parties to the suit. Subsequently, the second defendant/Mayilammal also died and the plaint was amended. The revision petitioner/third defendant has filed an additional written statement. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, was cross- examined in part by the revision petitioner/third defendant and the case was posted for continuation of cross-examination of PW1. In order to give reply https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 to the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant, the respondent/plaintiff has chosen to file an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.101 of 2013. Upon hearing either side, the Court below vide order dated 01.04.2025 allowed the application on the ground that based on the reply statement filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the Court below has already framed additional issues and also in order to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to put forth her case. 3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/third defendant has preferred the present petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/third defendant would submit that the Court below has failed to consider the fact that the reply statement has been filed only in the fag end of the proceedings, inasmuch as, the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff by the revision petition/third defendant was almost over. Further, he would submit that framing of additional issues would only envisage the respondent/plaintiff to let in fresh evidence completely contrary to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 evidence already let in by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the reasoning given by the Court below is not convincing and unsustainable. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the entire allegations stated in the additional written statement were denied by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has to file necessary reply statement against the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant for complete adjudication. He would further submit that the pleadings stated in the reply statement are not stated in the plaint by mistake and oversight and those facts are essential to prove the case of the respondent/plaintiff. 6. It is seen from the records that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a reply statement along with the application in I.A.No.4 of 2024. After setting aside the ex parte order of the revision petitioner/third defendant in the aforesaid I.A., the Court below has framed additional issue based on the reply statement filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 04.09.2024 itself. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 suit is filed for partition, in that, the dispute is between the mother and son and therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to put forth her case, an opportunity may be provided to the parties to adduce evidence. 7. In such view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. In the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. 07-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No nsd To The Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 M.JOTHIRAMAN J. nsd CRP No. 2859 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.2859 of 2025 07.10.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis