CRP/262/2024 of Jesuraj Santiago Vs Kumaran

CRP No. 262 of 2024 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 262 of 2024 and CMP.No.1249 of 2024 Jesuraj Santiago S/o. K.E. Santiago, No.5B, P.J. Apartment, Chakarapani Road, Guindy, Chennai 32. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Kumaran S/o (late) Mr. Appadurai, Bajanai Koil St, tharumanihdi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore Dt. V. Venkatesan @ V. Venkatesalur (Died) 2. V. Adhilakshmi W/o. Venkatesan, No.63, Ramar Koil St, Tharumanihdi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt. 3. V. Gajendran S/o. Venkatesan, No.63, Ramar Koil St, Tharumanihdi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt. 4. V. Settu S/o. Venkatesan, No.63, Ramar Koil St, Tharumanihdi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt. 5. V. Sekar S/o. Venkatesan, No.63, Ramar Koil St, Tharumanihdi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt. 6. V. Kavitha Sundaramoorthy D/o. Venkatesan, Krishna Nagar St, Ayarpadi Village, Arakkonam Tk, Ranipet Dt ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 262 of 2024 __________ Page2 of 4 PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of Indi a, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam i n IA No.6 of 2022 in OS No.132 of 2018 dated 15.09.2023. For Petitioner(s): MR.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondent(s): RESPONDENTS -BATTA DUE ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Judge in IA No.6 of 2022 in OS No.132 of 2018, dated 15.09.2023, the present revision has been filed. 2. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 of 2022, see king permission to file a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the 7 th defendant. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Judge. Aggrie ved by the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, af ter impleading the 7 th defendant as the legal heir of the deceased 1 st defendant, the 7th defendant filed a written statement containing new averments. The refore, the plaintiff sought permission to file a rejoinder to reply to the said averments. However, the Court below failed to grant such opportunity. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 262 of 2024 __________ Page3 of 4 4. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1 st defendant died pending proceedings and thereafter his legal heir, namely the 7th defendant, was impleaded. After impleadment, the 7th defendant filed a written statement containing new averments. 5. According to the plaintiff, it has become necessary to file a rejoinder to specifically deny and reply to the allegations made in the written statement filed by the 7 th defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to deny the allegations leve lled by each of the defendants separately. Therefore, an opportunity ought to ha ve been granted to the plaintiff to file the rejoinder. 6. However, the Trial Court failed to grant such opportunity. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court are set aside and the Civil Revision Pet ition is allowed. No. Costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 262 of 2024 __________ Page4 of 4 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mpa To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam. 2. The Section Officer, VR section, High Court of Madras. CRP No. 262 of 2024 and CMP.No.1249 of 2024 28-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis