The court emphasized the importance of timely and complete pleadings, and the need for acceptable reasons for introducing new facts and defense at a later stage of the litigation.

These two Revisions arise out of the Common Order of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, made in I.A.Nos.631 and 630 of 2002 in O.S.No. 212 of 1989, dated 09-10-2002, dismissing the Petitions filed under Or.8 R.9 C.P.C. declining to receive Additional Written Statement. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of these Revision Petitions could briefly be stated thus:-

a) O.S.No. 212 of 1989:- The minor Plaintiff has filed this Suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession of the suit property. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his paternal grandfather Perumal Reddy. The said Perumal Reddy has executed a Registered Will dated 19-01-1987, while he was in a sound disposing state of mind. The said Perumal Reddy died on 24-07-1988. The minor Plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the property, on the death of the Testator. The suit property is in S.No. 237/5, which is inclusive of a Flour Mill and its accessories. The Second Defendant was only a lessee of the suit property. On demand, the lessee and his son handed over the possession of the suit property to the next friend of the minor Plaintiff in the presence of Balarama Reddy of Palavakkam Village, who was the Ex-President of Village and Munuswamy Reddy of Perundurai Village. Aggrieved over the Will given in favour of the minor Plaintiff, the First Defendant has been attempting to trespass into the suit property. The First Defendant is the co-brother of the next friend of the Plaintiff (Father Natarajan). After taking into possession of the property, the father of the Plaintiff locked the premises and left for Madras on 10-03-1989. Thereafter, he was informed that the First Defendant broke open the Flour Mill and made an attempt to run the same, but, he was prevented by the Servants of the Plaintiff's next friend. The Plaintiff's next friend has given a police complaint to Uthukkottai Police Station. Emboldened by the act of the First Defendant, the Second Defendant also joined in the act of trespass. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

b) Denying the averments in the Plaint, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement stating that he is a practising Advocate and the Suit has been filed only to defame his reputation. The Plaintiff had not produced any document to prove his possession. The First Defendant's wife alone is having interest in the suit property and that she has let out the same to the Second Defendant. The Station House Officer, Uthukkottai P.S., after due investigation and enquiry directed the Plaintiff to go to the Court for recovery of possession of the suit property. In fact, only the Plaintiff tried to take forcible possession of the suit property from the Second Defendant. The entire Village is aware of the factum of possession by the Second Defendant. Perumal Reddy and Balasubramani Reddy @ Kuppusamy Reddy, made a family arrangement on 12-07-1981 amongst themselves in the presence of two respectable citizens – leading Advocates and Ex-Chairman of Villivakkam Panchayat Union and others. Both, Perumal Reddy and Balasubramani Reddy, agreed that the suit property should be enjoyed by Balasubramani Reddy @ Kuppusamy. In proof of the family arrangement, both of them have signed admitting the contents in the presence of the Panchayat Members. When that being so, Perumal Reddy have no power to bequeath the suit property to the Plaintiff through the alleged Will dated 19-01-1987. At the time of bequeathing, Perumal Reddy was not the owner of the suit property.

c) The Second Defendant is the lessee under the First Defendant's wife. After the amendment in 2000, the Third Defendant had filed a Written Statement on 14-12-2001, denying the execution of