This Court ordered notice before admission on 20.4.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period.

2. Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 6 in the Civil Revision Petition are specified as not necessary parties to the petition.

3. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned counsel representing revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, totally erred in allowing the application by granting permission to the first respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder without considering the fact that two years ago written statement had been filed. The learned counsel also would maintain that the first respondent/plaintiff having been unsuccessful in obtaining injunction thought of this application only with a view to fill up gaps by taking inconsistent pleas. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise they failed to file rejoinder within a reasonable time and after a long lapse of two years after filing the written statement, this application had been filed. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, two new pleas relating to the admissibility of the family settlement and whether it was acted upon and another plea relating to the fraud in relation to the sale deed, dated 4.2.1984, are being put forward and these pleas being new pleas or in a way inconsistent pleas with the original pleading, such pleas cannot be permitted to be raised by way of additional pleadings that is by way of rejoinder and hence, the Civil Revision Petition to be allowed.

The learned counsel also had taken this court through the language of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

4. Per contra, Sri Rama Mohan, learned counsel representing Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, would maintain that no doubt in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the plea of fraud in relation to sale deed, dated 4.2.1984, also had been specified. But, however, the learned counsel placed a copy of the proposed rejoinder filed on behalf of the plaintiff and on a careful reading of the averments made therein, it appears that such specific plea relating to sale deed had not been incorporated. The learned counsel also would maintain that in a way, this is a pre-trial amendment and instead of filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, this application was filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for putting in an additional pleading and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, had exercised judicial discretion by granting leave and permitting to file the said additional pleadings ie., rejoinder. The counsel also would maintain that this proposed amendment by way of additional pleading had not introduced any new case. As such, it is more or less clarificatory in nature, in the light of the defence taken in the written statement. The counsel also would further maintain that it is not as though the revision petitioners-contesting defendants have no opportunity of putting in further pleading, they can as well file additional written statement in response to the averments made in the rejoinder and inasmuch as virtually this is a pre-trial amendment and since the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, had exercised the discretion properly in permitting the same, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit, the same to be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsels on record.

6. Perused the respective pleadings of the parties, the proposed rejoinder filed on behalf of the plaintiff and also the order impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The revision petitioners/the first and second defendants in the suit filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of