1. This application by the defendant is directed against an order of the Munsiff granting leave to the plaintiff to file additional pleading in the following circumstances.

2. The plaintiff opposite party filed a title suit in the Court of the Munsif, Patna City, for realisation of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the premises in suit. Admittedly the premises in suit originally belonged to one Shrimati Shanti Devi who had inducted the petitioner in the same. The plaintiff purchased the house on 16-12-1974. In the written statement the defendant took several pleas and denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff against him for his eviction. One of his pleas was that he had spent Rs. 1,430.00 towards repair of the house with the consent of the previous landlord, which amount had not yet been adjusted towards the rent and, therefore, he was entitled to receive that amount from the plaintiff.

3. The trial Court allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint, granting the defendant an opportunity to file additional written statement. The defendant filed his additional written statement accordingly on 21-3-1977. Soon thereafter on 20-4-1977 the Plaintiff filed a petition in the nature of additional pleadings supposed to be in reply to additional written statement filed by the defendant. Objection was taken by the petitioner to this additional pleading of the plaintiff on various grounds, but the learned Munsiff by the impugned order allowed the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that according to the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, this additional pleading was not called for and accordingly it was argued that the Munsiff has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction

5. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned counsel for rival parties, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may be noticed. Order VI of the Code deals with the pleadings generally. Orders VII and VIII deal with the plaint, written statement and set-off. Rule 17 of Order VI deals With amendment of pleadings. This obviously applies to the amendment of the plaint and the written statement both. According to this provision, "the Court may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to after or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just........for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." Apart from the above provision there is one more provision contained in Rule 9 of Order VIII which reads as follows :

"No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of decease to a set-off shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same."

It is, perhaps, in exercise of the provisions contained in this rule that the learned Munsif has granted leave to the plaintiff.

6 It was contended that R.9 occurring in O.VIII which deals with written statement, does not empower a plaintiff to take recourse to this provision. It was contended that even the two kinds of subsequent pleadings which are contemplated under this rule, are "by way of defence to a claim of set-off or a counter-claim made by the defendant." A subsequent pleading, therefore, as envisaged under this rule by the plaintiff is by way of defence and not as a supplemental provision to further substantiate or add to the plaintiffs case as made out in the plaint.

7. It is not possible to accept this contention in the bald form as has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A subsequent pleading by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim can be filed by the plaintiff as a matter of right, but the provisions do contemplate the filing on other pleading as well but by the leave of the Court and inves