( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, dated 17-7-1998 dismissing I. A. No. 232/98 in o. S. No. 56/97 filed by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court to file a rejoinder.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent herein. She filed the said suit against the respondent-defendant for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule house situated in Kavali Town and for recovery of possession of the same.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner-plaintiff, as set forth in the plaint, is that the plaint schedule house was purchased by her from one Dr. N. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha rao under a registered sale deed dated 26-8-1974 for a total consideration of rs. 16,000/ -. Immediately thereafter she was put in possession of the said property. Subsequently, her husband (respondent- defendant) requested her to permit him to run his hospital in the plaint schedule house and she agreed for the same. The respondent-defendant was thus inducted into possession of the plaint schedule house on her permission. Subsequently, when the need arose for her, she made a request to the respondent to vacate the premises and deliver possession of the same. In spite of her repeated personal requests and the requests made through her close relatives, the respondent did not oblige. She then issued a legal notice to the respondent on 27-10-1997 demanding delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule house. Having received the said notice, the respondent kept quiet without even issuing a formal reply. Hence, the suit.

( 4 ) THE respondent-defendant filed an elaborate written statement not only denying the plaint averments, but also explaining, in detail, that how he fell in love with one Dr. Sujata in the year 1970, that how he was forced to marry the petitioner-plaintiff, who is no other than his sister s daughter, and that how even after the marriage he and his love-Dr. Sujatha started to live together from September, 1973 onwards. He also specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule house was purchased by him with his own funds, but the sale deed was mischievously taken in the name of the petitioner-plaintiff by his father and elder brother. He states that since the purchase of the suit schedule house, he is running his nursing Home there and made lot of improvements to it by investing huge sums. He also made several other statements, in detail, regarding the strained relationship between him and the petitioner-plaintiff.

( 5 ) AFTER filing of the said written statement, the petitioner-plaintiff filed i. A. No. 232/98 seeking leave of the Court to file a rejoinder denying several allegations made by the respondent-defendant in his written statement and also explaining how she had raised funds and purchased the plaint scheduled house. The learned Senior civil Judge dismissed the said I. A. , holding thus:". . . . . . . . BUT on perusal of the averments in the written statement filed by the respondent it is quite clear that the respondent never pleaded any set-off of counter-claim. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable under Order 8 Rule 8 CPC. "the learned Senior Civil Judge also observed that:"the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead new facts quite inconsistently with the original pleadings". It is this order that is assailed in this revision petition.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner submits that the learned senior Civil Judge grossly erred in rejecting the application as not maintainable under Order 8 Rule 8 CPC overlooking the fact that in essence the application is one under Order 8 Rule 9 cpc - which clearly permits the parties to file subsequent pleadings with the leave of the Court, that amounts to exercising his jurisdiction with material irregularity - and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) COUNSEL for the respondent, however, strongly disputed the aforesaid contention.

( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the aforesa