ORDER :- The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, in not accepting his claim, to strike out the averments in the additional written statement, has preferred this revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit against this respondent and two others, for declaration that the defendants are trespassers, that they should be directed to deliver possession of the property, with past as well as future profits, at specified rates, with some other ancillary relief.

3. The respondent herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, had filed a written statement more or less admitting the title of the plaintiff, claiming lease hold interest over the site, under which, claiming further protection under City Tenants Protection Act, etc., raising certain other defence also.

4. After the filing of the original written statement, the first defendant/respondent herein had filed a petition, before the trial Court, for the reception of an additional written statement and the same was allowed, despite objection by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The plaintiff/revision petitioner had not questioned the order passed by the trial Court, granting permission to the first defendant, to file additional written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff/revision petitioner had filed I.A. No. 11484/2002, before the trial Court to strike out the averments in paragraphs 1 to 9 in the additional written statement, thereby the plaintiff wanted to scrap the entire additional written statement, since it contained only paragraphs 1 to 9 apart from the cause title. As seen from the averments in the petition, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the averments contained in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the additional written statement are inconsistent from the previous written statements, as well as they are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in nature. This application to strike out the additional written statement was opposed.

5. The learned trial Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion that no case is made out, to strike out the averments in the additional written statement, the further fact being, the additional written statement was entertained, after hearing the parties in the I.A. In this view of the matter, the application came to be dismissed on 29-7-2003, which is under challenge.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Shakespeare and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. S. Subbiah.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend, that the averments in the additional written statement are not only diametrically opposite to the original stand taken by the first defendant in the written statement, but also they are against the decision rendered by this Court in some other proceedings and in this view, such defence should not be allowed to be raised. It is the further submission of the learned counsel, that if the averments in the additional written statement are allowed, that will cause prejudice to him, being in the nature of scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent are, that the additional written statement was received only on application, after hearing the parties and in this view, it could not be scraped as claimed and that the averments in the additional written statement, even assuming that they are inconsistent with the previous statement, the defendant could take such a stand, which cannot be labelled either vexatious or scandalous or prejudicial and if at all, the nature of the allegations have to be decided only at the time of the trial.

9. In this context, one should remember, Order VIII, Rule 9 which gives ample power to the Court, to grant leave, for filing additional written statement, from any of the parties to the suit and it does not restrict prescribing, what is the defence that has to be taken or something like that. It says,

"No pleading subsequent to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document