In this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the grievance of the petitioner, defendant in the suit is that his application for leave of the court for filing additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the reason that the proposed additional written statement does not raise a plea of counter-claim or set off. Ext.P5 is the impugned order.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur, learned counsel for the petitioner and also those of Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Flaying Ext.P5 order, Sri.G.Sreekumar would submit that the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that additional pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code are contemplated from the side of the defendant only when he raises a plea of set off or counter-claim is erroneous.

4. Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel for the respondent attempted to support Ext.P5 order on merits. The learned counsel submitted that all the averments in the proposed additional written statement pertain to matters which were well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he filed the original written statement itself. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the petitioner in his affidavit in support of the application for leave as to why he could not raise those averments in the original written statement.

5. "Pleadings" have been defined in the Code under Order VI Rule 1 to mean "plaint or written statement". Order VIII Rule 9 deals with pleadings subsequent to plaint and written statement.

"Subsequent pleadings" can be either by the plaintiff or by the defendant. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge that subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 are contemplated from the side of the defendant only when he raises pleas of set off or counter-claim is clearly erroneous. What Rule 9 provides is only that no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter-claim shall be presented except with the leave of the court. It is thus clear that the reference to set off or counter-claim under Rule 9 of Order VIII is reference to subsequent pleadings raised by the plaintiff and not to subsequent pleadings raised by the defendant. As far as subsequent pleadings raised by the defendant are concerned and for any subsequent pleadings from the plaintiff other than those by way of defence to the pleas of set off and counter-claim, what is necessary is that the leave of the court shall be obtained. Additional pleadings raised by the defendants subsequent to the written statement originally filed by them under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are often referred to as additional written statements. Filing of additional written statement may be necessitated for the purpose of introducing new contentions or for clarifying or elaborating on the contentions already raised. That need not necessarily be for raising pleas of set off or counter-claim, since having regard to the rules of limitation applicable to pleas of set off and counter-claim, defendant may have to raise such pleas at the earliest opportunity itself.

6. It was submitted at the Bar that written statement raising a defence to the plea of set off or counter-claim is often referred to as "rejoinder". I do not think so. In fact, S.Sankarasubban, J. had occasion, in Sunil & Vasanth v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. (1999 (1) KLT 61), to deal with various types of pleadings which are raised by parties in actual practice though the Code of Civil Procedure envisages only plaints and written statements as pleadings. His Lordship observed, relying on Kochukesavan Nair v. Gouri Amma (1967 KLT 257), that the word "replication" is the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's pleas through his written statement (which need not necessarily be one raising a plea of set off or counter-claim) and "rejoinder" is the defendant's answer to the pl