ORDER :- The respondents in A. S. No. 106 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore are the Revision Petitioners herein. The appellants in the said appeal filed I. A. No. 133 of 2004 under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to receive Additional Written Statement, which was allowed, hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners respondents herein have originally filed the petition in I. A. No. 256 of 2000 for reception of additional written statement during the pendency of suit in O. S. No. 259 of 2000 raising the plea of limitation, estoppel and other grounds, which was however closed without passing any interim Order, hence an application in I. A. No. 133 of 2004 was taken out in the said A. S. No. 106 of 2003 for the very same relief. Considering the plea taken by the respondents, the first Appellate Court found that the trial Court has hastily dismissed the application of the respondents herein seeking permission to file Additional written Statement and came to the conclusion that sufficient opportunity has to be afforded to them and allowed the said application.

3. Mr. Dhanyakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the respondents deliberately failed to canvass the said points in time before trial Court; that the application has been filed seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement before the trial Court, only after the trial was over which was dismissed; that the said order was not challenged by the respondents herein, hence it is not open to them to file another application before the first Appellate Court, hence, at this stage, after a lapse of about 12 years, it is not proper on their part to seek permission to file additional written statement.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised by the respondents before the Court below and prayed for dismissal of the civil Revision Petition.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel on either aside and perused the records.

6. It is seen from the records that the respondents herein have filed necessary application seeking leave to file additional written statement which was hastily dismissed by the trial Court, however, not on merits but on technical grounds, ignoring serious question of law, which was canvassed.

7. No doubt, the defendant can file a written statement as a matter of right and for doing so, he does not have to obtain the permission of the Court for filing additional written statement. Permission of the Court has to be obtained under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion has to be exercised depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and in all such cases, the party, who seeks leave has to explain as to why this contention was not raised in the earlier pleadings. While exercising the discretion, the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of the litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship.

8. The dictum laid down with regard to the powers of the Court in granting leave for filing additional written statement is that the Court should take a lenient view, it should be positive and should have a liberal approach. The said proposition has been enunciated in the judgement reported in Subramanian v. Jayaraman (1999) 3 Mad LW 458,

"9) ............... The approach of Law in permitting the Court to grant leave in such cases is positive. But, the Court while granting the leave could direct the petitioner to comply with certain terms that the Court thinks fit and hence absolutely there is no impediment or hurdle or legal barrier put forth by the Rule in allowing any additional statement subsequent to the written statement and the only shot provided in the arms of the Court for granting leave is that it could allow the application on such terms as it thinks fit .................

Click Here to Read the rest of this document