G.SELVARAJ vs TAMARAISELAVI
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.10564 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA010802652025}
1. G.Selvaraj
S/o.Govindhasamy
2. Kalaiselvan
S/o.Selvaraj
..Petitioners in both
revisions
Vs
1. Tamaraiselavi
W/o.Kalaiyarasan
2. Selvakumar
S/o.Annamalai
3. Pazhaniyammal
W/o.Vijayakumar
4. Minor Vijayabharathi @ Ajaykumar
By Guardian Father of Vijayakumar,
5. Senthilkumari
W/o.Namachivayam
6. Senthamizhselvi
W/o.Elangovan
7. Manonmani
W/o.Annamalai
..Respondents in both
revisions
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the impugned order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of
2020 dated 01-03-2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated
24.02.2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam.
For Petitioners :
[in both revisions]
Mr.R.Rajavelavan
For Respondents :
[in both revisions]
Mrs.R.Meenal
and Mr.T.Sezhian [R1]
No appearance [R2 to R4]
*
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed against the order passed in
I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 01-03-2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2024
in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated 24.02.2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate
Court, Virudhachalam, wherein the application filed by first respondent/plaintiff
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint and application filed
under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed eighth defendant came to
be allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the
materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2020
th
seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 7/36 share in the suit
properties. The contest was more focused on the first item of the suit property,
which was described as Survey No.18/5A3A. The case was at the stage of
examination of witness on the side of first respondent/plaintiff and PW-1 had
already been cross-examined on the side of defendants.
4. The first respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of
2020 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed eighth defendant,
who is the son of the seventh defendant on the ground that the seventh
defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of the eighth defendant on
01.09.2017. The first respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in
O.S.No.26 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking for the following
amendment:
@1/ tHf;Fiu Fwe;jiyg;gpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp bgaUf;F gpwF
(8) fiyr;bry;td;’(t/k/1-2024y;’24/02/2025y;’Vw;gl;l
cj;jputpd;go nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;) vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/
2/ tHf;Fiu beLe;jiyg;gpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp tpyhrj;jpw;F
gpwF
8) ,e;ePjpkd;w epytiu mjpfhu tuk;gpw;Fl;gl;l.
tpUj;jhryk;’tl;lk;. bghpafhg;ghd;Fsk;’kJuh
gp/nf/tPbul;of;Fg;gk;’fpuhkj;jpy;. vz;/13-4y;’trpf;Fk;
bry;tuhR Fkhuh;. ,e;J. gaph;. Rkhh;’22 taJs;s
fiyr;bry;td;’(t/k/1-2024y;’24/02/2025y;’Vw;gl;l
cj;jputpd;go nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;) ? vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/
3/ tHf;Fiu gj;jp 5?f;F gpwF 5(m) Mf nrh;f;f
ntz;oaJ
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
5(m) tHf;F Kjypdr;’brhj;ij 7k ; vjph;thjp
mtuJ kfdhd 8k;’vjph;thjpf;F mWjpahtzk;’vGjp
bfhLj;Js;sjhf vjph;tHf;Fiuapy;’bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ 7k;
vjph;thjpf;F tHf;F 1tJ,dr;brhj;ij fpiuak;
bfhLj;jth;fSf;F KG chpika[k;’fpilahJ/ 7k;
vjph;thjp tHf;F Kjy;’brhj;ij brhj;J RthjPdk;
milatpy;iy/ gpd;dpl;l tptfhu';fis jtph;f;f 8k;
vjph;thjpia tHf;fpy;’jug;gpduhf nrh;f;f t/k/1-2024
jhf;fy;’bra;ag;gl;L mk;kD 24/02/2025y;
mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mjdog;gilapy;’8k;
vjph;thjp ,t;tHf;fpy; jug;gpduhf nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;/
4/ tHf;F 1tJ,dr;brhj;ij jw;nghJs;sij ePf;fp tpl;L
fPH;f;fz;lthW jpUj;jk; bra;a ntz;Lk;/
m/g[/hp/r/18-5V3gp?y;’0/51/0 Vh;rpy;’fPH;g[wk;’55 brz;l;
rf;Fge;jp
ikdh;’mUd;Fkhh;’epyj;jpw;Fk;’(bjw;F) Xilf;Fk;
(nkw;F). ghijf;Fk;’(tlf;F). 7k;’vjph;thjp fpiuak;
bgw;w 74 brz;ow;Fk; (fpHf;F) kjpg;g[ U:/95.475?00
5/ tHf;Fiu cga thjpfs;’tpyhrj;jpy;’7k;’vjph;thjp
tpyhrj;jpw;F gpwF
8) fiyr;bry;td;
j-bg/bry;tuhR
Vz;/13-4. gp/nf/tPbul;of;Fg;gk;.
bghpafhg;ghd;Fsk; kJuh
tpUj;jhryk; tl;lk;
flY}h; khtl;lk;/
? vd nrh;f;f ntz;Lk;/@
5. The Court below passed an order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of
2020 by allowing the application and by impleading the proposed eighth
defendant as a party to the proceedings based on the settlement deed executed
by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant. However, insofar as
the amendment application is concerned, the Court below did not pass
considered order and the Court below had merely passed an order to the effect
that already the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed and
hence, this application is also allowed.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
6. The above procedure adopted by the Court below, on the face of it, is
illegal. The crux of the issue involved in the present case is as to whether the
property settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant was
part of the suit property. As per the plaint, the first item of the suit property was
shown as Survey No.18/5A3A. In the affidavit filed in support of the
application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020, a stand has been taken to
the effect that Survey No.18/5A3B is part of the first item of the suit property.
However, while claiming for amendment, the first respondent/plaintiff wants to
delete the first item of the suit property, which is Survey No.18/5A3A and
wants to show Survey No.18/5A3B as the first item of the suit property along
with boundaries. The Court below has not even applied its mind as to whether
the property settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant
formed part of the suit property. The Court below also did not apply its mind as
to whether Survey No.18/5A3B is part of Survey No.18/5A3A. Thus, the Court
below merely went by the settlement deed executed by the seventh defendant in
favour of the eighth defendant without finding as to which property was actually
settled by the seventh defendant in favour of the eighth defendant. The Court
below presumed that the property settled in favour of the eighth defendant also
forms part of the suit property. In view of the same, the order passed by the
Court below suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
7. The Court below has allowed the application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in
O.S.No.26 of 2020 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC even without any
discussion by stating that since the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC
has been allowed, as a consequence, the amendment application also stands
allowed. On the face of it, such an order passed by the Court below is illegal
and perverse.
8. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of
2020 dated 01-03-2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 dated
24.02.2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,
Virudhachalam and the Court below is directed to apply its mind to the
applications filed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 and 2 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2020 and
after affording opportunity to both parties, pass orders in these interlocutory
applications in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any observations
made in the present revisions will not have any bearing when the Court below
deals with the applications afresh on merits.
9. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2020, the Court below is
directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed in the above terms.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gm
To
The Additional Subordinate Court,
Virudhachalam.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )
C.R.P.Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gm
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1828 & 1831 of 2025
29-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:26 pm )