( 1 ) HEARD Sri Adinarayana, representing sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners.

( 2 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 29-4-2005 and R-1 was served. R-2 and R-3 were shown as not necessary parties.

( 3 ) SRI Adinarayana, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would contend that the revision petitioners/ defendants 3 and 4 moved an application in ia. No. 6/2005 in OS. No. 2/2004 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Rajampet under Order 8 rule 9 C. P. C. On behalf of the petitioners- minors, taking the plea of fraud and impersonation in execution of the mortgage deed. The counsel would submit that the defendants are entitled to take inconsistent pleas and even otherwise in the present case inasmuch as the court guardian filed a written statement. Court guardian was not informed with the proper facts at the relevant point of time and on verification of records it came to light that there is element of fraud and also impersonation involved in the execution of the said registered mortgage deed and hence inasmuch as minors interest has to be protected this application was thought of.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel.

( 5 ) THE petitioners, no doubt minors represented by the Court guardian moved an application in IA. No. 6/2005 in O. S. No. 2/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet under Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. praying for leave to file additional written statement to take plea of fraud and the plea of impersonation in execution of the mortgage deed, the subject matter of the suit.

( 6 ) THE application was resisted stating that in the written statement the execution of the mortgage deed dated 5-11-2002 was admitted and a plea of discharge was taken and in view of the same such inconsistent plea cannot be permitted.

( 7 ) IT is pertinent to note that along with the application no additional written statement as such was filed. It is true that the petitioners are minors and the interest of the minors may have to be protected and it is also true that the Court guardian is representing the minors. But, however, in the original written statement filed by the revision petitioners it is clearly admitted borrowing of Rs. 2 lakhs under the registered mortgage deed dated 5-11-2002 and execution of the same by S. K. Fathima begum. It was also pleaded that S. K. Fathima begum discharged debt of Rs. 2 lakhs which she had actually borrowed and nothing remained to be paid. Hence, in substance the stand taken is one of discharge. Now the petitioners intend to take a stand of plea of fraud and plea of impersonation. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of P. Ws. 1 to 3. At this stage the present application was thought of praying for leave to file additional written statement without at least enclosing the proposed additional written statement along with the application, which had been moved for this purpose.

( 8 ) ORDER 8 Rule 9 of the C. P. C. reads as hereunder: "no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off {or counterclaim} shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. "

( 9 ) IN M/s. S. K. D. Laboratories, A. Proprietory concern rep by Hari nagabhushnamv. Bank of India, Vijayawada the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Order 8 Rule 9 read with Order 6 rule 7 C. P. C. held "that a combined reading of Order VIII, Rule 9 and Order VI, Rule 7 c. P. C. , makes it clear that additional pleadings which are inconsistent with the previous pleadings, cannot be permitted by the court. In view of the mandatory language used in Order VI, Rule 7 prohibiting departure in pleadings, the additional written statement which contains pleas inconsistent with grounds in the written statement, cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document