This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 01.12.2011, in I.A.No.122 of 2011 in O.S.No.58 of 2005 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

The petitioners are plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. When the case was coming up for cross-examination of P.W-1, the respondents, who are defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 9 to 12, filed I.A.No.122 of 2011 for amendment of the written statement. This application was opposed by the petitioners mainly on the grounds that it was too belated and that, the respondents failed to show due diligence in raising the pleadings which are now sought to be raised by way of amendment. The lower Court having considered the rival pleadings, allowed the application by permitting the respondents to amend the written statement.

At the hearing, Sri K.Maheswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously argued that the lower Court has committed a serious error in allowing the respondents’ application for amendment of the written statement at a far too belated stage when the case was coming up for cross-examination of P.W.-1. He has further argued that the respondents failed to show due diligence and therefore, the lower Court ought not to have allowed the application of the respondents for amendment of the written statement.

Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri B.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The power of the Court to permit pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant is envisaged by Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’). The said provision ordains that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of a defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. This provision further provides that the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than 30 days for presenting the same.

This provision, thus, vests discretion in the Court to allow subsequent pleadings in respect of the written statement and also empowers the Court to require filing of a written statement or additional written statement by any of the parties within a time limit of 30 days.

Order VI C.P.C., deals with pleadings generally. Rule 1 of Order VI C.P.C., defined pleadings as plaint or written statement. Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., relates to the amendment of pleadings. The proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., prescribes that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

As noted above, while Order VI C.P.C., relates to the pleadings in general, Order VIII C.P.C., exclusively deals with the written statement. The same rigor of standard that is prescribed in Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., is not prescribed in Rule 9 of Order VIII C.P.C.

The present case, whereby the respondents wanted to add further pleadings to the written statement, squarely falls under Rule 9 of Order VIII C.P.C. The discretion of the Court to allow subsequent pleadings under Rule 9 of Order VIII C.P.C., is perhaps wider than the discretion given to it by Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. While in both the events, the parties have to necessarily show diligence, in cases, falling under Rule 9 of Order VIII C.P.C., the Court can show more latitude towards the party in allowing subsequent pleadings by the defendants.

The obvious reason for this appears to be that by the change of plaint by the plaintiff at a belated stage, the proceedings instituted by him may take to