Court should take lenient view in granting leave to file additional written statement.

1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 14. 1996 made in I.A.No. 595 of 1996 in O.S.No. 129 of 1995 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in so far dismissing an application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code pleading thereby to grant leave for reception of the additional written statement filed therewith.

.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is contented that they found that necessary particulars and clarifications in respect of the prior proceedings were to be given in full; that they have to put forward the plea of res judicata and estoppel with reference to the facts of the case, in which even no prejudice will be caused to the other side also and hence praying for leave to be granted to receive the additional written statement filed therewith.

3. The respondent has also filed his counter stating thereby that the additional written statement is directly contradictory to the previous written statement further containing inconsistent stands; that the petitioners cannot introduce new and diagonally opposite stand, which is not permitted by Law; that the averments regarding the ‘B’ schedule properties are also untenable; that the Commissioner got appointed and he filed a report, for which the petitioners have not filed any objection and hence no objection regarding the identity of the property could be raised at a later stage and would oppose the application stiffly.

4. The trial Court, in consideration of the above contentions of parties and further citing what was held in a case reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C.680, the sum and substance of which is that if the defendants by means of amendment want to introduce an entirely different case and if permitted would prejudice the other side, and further stating that a commission got appointed by the Court and the Commissioner on inspection of the suit properties had also filed detailed report for which no objection was raised by the petitioners and hence they will not have any thing more than what is contemplated in the Commissioner’s Report and would ultimately dismiss the petition without costs.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners before the Trial Court came forward to prefer the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds as offered in the Memorandum of Revision Petition.

.6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that it is a suit for bare injunction and among the two schedules of the suit properties, ‘A’ and ‘B’, ‘A’ schedule properties belong to the plaintiff and ‘B’ schedule is a non-existent and imaginary one, wherein certain rights are claimed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also cite a judgment reported in Chinnappan v. Ellammal , 97 L.W. 611 wherein it is held that

.“There is thus no fetter on the power of Court requiring a written statement or an additional written statement from any of the parties at any time. But if the party wants to file an additional written statement, then under Order 8, Rule 9 Cr.P.C., he has to obtain the leave of Court, as without it, no pleading subsequent to the written statement can be presented into Court. Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. enables the Court to allow either party to alter or amend the pleading at any stage of the proceeding, but such amendments shall be made as may be necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. The power of Court is not in any manner curtailed or circumscribed by the other provisions occurring in Order 6 or Order .7. or even Order .8. C.P.C.”

7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the other side wants to file the additional written statement one year after filing the written statement; that the original written statement is vague and does not contain anything relevant and it does not deny the previous suit also; that in order to introduce new ground, as th