Ramaswami, J.

1. This rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad, dated 6-12-1951, refusing to permit the defendant to file an additional written statement.

2. The opposite party brought a suit claiming damages against the petitioner on the allegation that on 4-7-1948, an engine shunting a goods train collided with a buffer and crashed in front of a laboratory erected by the plaintiff which was located close to the buffer near the railway line. The plaintiff company alleged that they suffered loss and damages which amounted to Rs. 1,47,170.00 and odd. The defendant filed a written statement in which it was denied that there was any negligence on the part of the railway administration. On 26-11-1951, the defendant applied under Order 8, Rule 9, Civil P.C. for permission to file an additional written statement. The defendant prayed that two paras should be added in the original written statement to the following effect: "

(1) The defendant has learnt on enquiry that the land on which the laboratory was constructed did not belong to the plaintiff company or their predecessor. The said land and its vicinity and other adjoining lands were acqui