1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 27/2004, who is respondent in I.A. No. 630/2005, is the revision petitioner herein. I.A. No. 630/2005 in O.S. No. 27/2004 was filed under Order 8, Rule 9 and 151 of the C.P.C. by the defendant in the Suit seeking permission after filing additional written statement on the ground that only after filing of Ex.A-9, the defendant came to know that the properties agreed to be sold are the properties of the individual and not the property of the plaintiff-firm. A counter was filed by the respondent and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has allowed the Petition, permitting the defendant to file additional written statement in the Suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred this Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the plaintiffs evidence is closed and at that stage, the respondent herein is trying to file two additional written statements in the Suit. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in Chandra and two others v. Ranganathan, 2005 (4) LW 482 and contended that defendant is not justified in filing the Application under