1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL A.No.1950 of 2025 in C.S.No.264 of 2024 1. Mr.K.Mahendar Baid S/o.S.Kamalchand Baid 2. Mr.M/Vivek Baid, S/o.K.Mahendar Baid 3. Mr. M.Vishal Baid S/o. K.Mahendar Baid ...Applicants/ Plaintiffs v. 1. Mr.S.Kamalchand Baid S/o.R.Simbumall Baid 47, North Mada Street Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2. Mr.Ajay Marlecha S/o.Narendar Marlecha 3. Mr.Akshay Marlecha S/o.Narendar Marlecha 4. Mr.K.Vijayakumar Baid S/o.S.Kamalchand Baid 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 5.Ms.V.Bhavna D/o.K.Vijayakumar Baid 6.Ms.V.Prerna D/o.K.Vijayakumar Baid 7.Mr.V.Dhaman S/o.K.Vijayakumar Baid ...Respondents/ Defendants PRAYER: Judges summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w. Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to grant leave to the Applicants/Plaintiffs to file the Reply Statement to the Written Statement filed by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and adopted by the Respondents 4 to 7/Defendants 4 to 7, pending disposal of the suit. For Applicant : Mr.K.V.Babu For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1 No appearance for R2 No appearance for R4 ORDER This application is filed to grant leave to the applicants/plaintiffs to file reply statement to the written statement filed by the first respondent/first defendant and adopted by respondents 4 to 7/defendants 4 to 7. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 2. According to the first applicant, he is the first plaintiff in the main suit. After serving of summons, the first respondent/first defendant has filed a detailed written statement and the same was adopted by the respondents 4 to 7/defendants 4 to 7. Since various averments and allegations set out in the written statement require to be rebutted, more particularly for the reason that the first defendant has introduced new documents which is not to the knowledge of these plaintiffs, it has become just and necessary that a detailed reply statement is required to be filed to remove the cloud over the entire issue in controversy. Therefore, filing of the reply statement to the written statement is very essential to this case. 3. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly objected to allow this application on the ground that the reply statement is nothing but repetitions of the earlier pleadings and the defendant only relied few documents and replied the allegations levelled in the pleadings of the plaintiff and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. This Court heard both sides and perused records. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 5. The applicants being the plaintiffs filed this application to receive the reply statement after filing the written statement of the first respondent/first defendant. According to the applicants/plaintiffs, in the written statement filed by the first respondent/first defendant, they have introduced new documents which are not to the knowledge of the applicants/plaintiffs and the averments of the written statement required to be rebutted. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also fairly conceded that some of the averments in the written statement are newly introduced. However, his objection is only in respect of the repetitions found in the written statement. This Court also perused the entire records. There are some allegations made in the written statement and as per the written statement, some new documents also referred. Therefore, in order to rebut the new allegations in the documents, it is necessary that the applicants/plaintiffs should file the reply statement. Therefore, in order to give chance to the plaintiffs, this application has to be allowed. Merely 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 filing the reply statement will no way affect the defendants' case. Therefore, A.No.1950 of 2025 is allowed. No costs. 13.10.2025 kal 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 P.DHANABAL J. kal A.No.1950 of 2025 in C.S.No.264 of 2024 13.10.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis