THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment reserved on : 12.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 20.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.Nos.5510 & 5512 of 2025 & CMP.Nos.27707 & 27710 of 2025 S.Raja .. Petitioner in CRP.No.5510 of 2025 S.Shanmugam .. Petitioner in CRP.No.5512 of 2025 Vs.

B.Shantilal .. Respondent in both CRPs Common prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.58 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner : Mr.Rishab Narayanan.S in both CRPs For Respondent : Dr.A.Thiyagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar in both CRPs

COMMON ORDER

The defendants in O.S.No.58 of 2016 and O.S.No.60 of 2016, aggrieved by the dismissal of their application, seeking permission to file additional written statement, are the revision petitioners in their respective revision petitions.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar in both the revision petitions.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan, would state that though the petitioner had been set ex-parte in the suit and a decree came to be passed, the petitioner, after approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, succeeded in getting the ex-parte decree set aside. Thereafter, he has filed his written statement. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the written statement of the petitioner was filed, the plaintiff took out an application to adduce additional evidence and additional documents were permitted to be received by an order dated 20-11-2024. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan would therefore state that the additional written statement was absolutely necessary, in order to meet the additional documents, that have been introduced by the respondent/plaintiff.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the plaint and the documents exhibited, along with the suit at the first instance and contend that there is absolutely no reference to the additional documents and therefore ,an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner to meet the same by filing an additional written statement. In support of his submissions, Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan has relied on the following decisions: 1.Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Abkerally and others, in Civil Appeal Nos.4148 to 4149 of 2009 dated 07.07.2009.

2.Lalith Kumar Jain @ Lalith Jain and another Vs.

N.G.Deivasigamani and others in CRP.No.89 of 2018.

3.Minor Mahema and another Vs. J.Suganth and another in CRP.No.892 of 2013 dated 05.01.2016.

4.Ram Pratap Pandey Vs. Vidyadhar Pandey and others, reported in 2007 SCC Online Pat 35.

5.Muthusamy Vs. Thangaraj, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 785.

5.Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the plaintiff had not even pleaded about the documents, which are now permitted to be exhibited and marked, the petitioner cannot be taken by surprise and he should be given adequate opportunity to meet the same and only for such limited purpose, the application was filed, seeking permission to file additional written statement.

6.In fact, taking me through the contents of the additional written statement as well, Mr.S.Rishab Narayanan would contend that the suit has been filed by the respondent in his individual capacity, whereas the additional documents, that are now sought to be introduced and also permitted by the Court point to the fact that the cheque issued to the petitioners/ defendants was by a Company and not by the respondent, as an individual. He would therefore state that the very foundation of the suit claim and cause of action would necessarily be affected and it was only in this regard that the permission was sought for