Heard the counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

2. The facts as are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is arrayed as the second defendant in a pending civil suit. The first respondent is the plaintiff who has filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. His father is the second respondent, his wife and step mother who are the third and fourth respondents, respectively, are co-defendants.

3. The present petitioner had adopted the written statement filed by his father wherein it was contended that the agreement of sale, of which specific performance was sought, is a got up document and that the defendants had never executed such an agreement. While admitting that another agreement dated 13.12.2001 though executed was in favour of the plaintiff was only to sell 6½ acres of land on the northern side of Sy. No.55 of Lalithadripura, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District and therefore the agreement in respect of which specific performance was sought was a concocted document and hence the suit be dismissed.

4. The written statement is dated 18.11.2004. The petitioner herein had thereafter filed an application on 24.3.2008 seeking to file an additional written statement. It was contended that in view of certain subsequent events, it was necessary to file an additional written statement to refute the claim of the first respondent – plaintiff and further emphasizing that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the written statement filed by the first defendant and it was stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Madaiah and he had willed the suit schedule property to the first defendant – second respondent herein, with life interest in the said property and that the Will further declared that it is only after the death of the second respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, that the property would devolve on the petitioner and others and this fact was not known to the petitioner. It is only upon receiving the suit summons in another civil suit in OS No. 900 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dvn.,] at Mysore, wherein the petitioner is the second defendant, that the Will said to have been executed by the above named Madaiah was made known by the father – second respondent herein and that he was under the mistaken belief that after the demise of Madaiah, the property had devolved absolutely upon the father of the petitioner and himself. It is on this plea that the additional written statement was sought to be filed to urge this additional defence.

5. The trial court having rejected the application, the petitioner is before this court.

6. The trial court has by a detailed order, rejected the application. It is now contended by the counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the tenor of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [hereinafter referred to as CPC for brevity] there is no impediment in allowing such additional defence which is filed only in order to amplify the defence that is already taken and the same would not be inconsistent with the written statement already filed. The petitioner only seeks to place the true and correct facts before the court and therefore the petitioner being denied this right would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner and reliance is placed on the following authorities.

7. ‘S Sridevi Vs. S Vijay And Another’ 1989 [1] KLJ 100, this is a case wherein this court sitting in revision had held that in a case where the first defendant had not filed a written statement in a suit for partition and separate possession but had adopted the written statement filed by another and the written statement filed by that defendant had taken the stand that the plaintiff had no right of any kind in the suit schedule property, much less one-third share, and if that is adopted by the first defendant and h