Legal representatives in a partition suit are entitled to contest the case and file a written statement, safeguarding their rights and opportunity for fair trial.

ORDER :

1. C.R.P(MD)No.2783 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Aundipatti, in I.A.No.16 of 2025 in O.S.No.178 of 2006, dated 11.09.2025.

2. C.R.P(MD)No.3817 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Aundipatti, in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.178 of 2006, dated 27.11.2025.

3. C.R.P(MD)No.3818 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Aundipatti, in I.A.No.19 of 2025 in O.S.No.178 of 2006, dated 27.11.2025.

4. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S.No.178 of 2006, before the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti, seeking for partition and separate possession of their respective shares. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased 8^th defendant, have filed an application in I.A.No.16 of 2025 to accept the written statement filed by them as legal representatives of the deceased 8^th defendant. The learned District Munsif, Aundipatti, vide impugned order, dated 11.09.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that the said application was filed only to drag on the proceedings/suit, which is pending for nearly 20 years.

5. Further, the petitioners have also filed applications in I.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2025 to reopen the plaintiff and defendants side evidence and to recall PW-1 and defendants side witness for the purpose of cross examination by the 25^th to 31^st respondents in O.S.No.178 of 2006. Those petitions were also dismissed by the Court below by holding that the legal representatives cannot be permitted to take a stand inconsistent with or contrary to the stand already taken by the deceased defendant, after the trial has concluded. Challenging the above impugned orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were added as legal representatives of the deceased 8^th defendant and when they enquired the status of the case, it is found that they were not given a chance to file their written statement and to examine the witnesses. He further submitted that without getting approval of the 8^th defendant, the Counsel for the 8^th defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the 9^th defendant and that they have filed the present application to accept the written statement filed by them as legal representatives of the deceased 8^th defendant. He also submitted that the Court below has failed to consider the legal notice, dated 27.08.1994, sent by the deceased 8^th defendant/mother of the petitioners claiming partition from the suit property. Further, there is no opportunity given to the petitioners to examine the witnesses and without doing so, the trial Court has closed both sides evidence, which will cause great hardship and injustice to the petitioners. He also submitted that disallowing the petitioners to file a written statement on their behalf is nothing but depriving the rights of the petitioners in the suit property. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.

7. The learned Counsels for the respondents submitted that the deceased 8^th defendant has already adopted the written statement filed by the 9^th defendant and that after impleading the petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased 8^th defendant, they have filed the written statement and praying to reopen the evidence and recall the witnesses only with an intention to drag on the proceedings, which was rightly refused by the Court below, which needs no interference of this Court.

8. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused materials available on record.

9. From the perusal of the recor