The court emphasized that the additional written statement cannot set up a new case or state facts at direct variance with the original written statement, and that the permission to file a written statement does not allow treating the subject matter afresh or ignoring the earlier written statement.

The petitioners/respondents/plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 10.08.2009 in I.A.No.126 of 2009 in O.S.No.333 of 2000 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Gopichettipalayam in allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying permission of the Court to receive the Additional written statement.

2.The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.126 of 2009 dated 10.08.2009 has interalia opined that ... Although question of law need not be pleaded to avoid objection on moral question of law and fact certain pleadings on question of law can be termitted to be pleaded and by allowing this application no prejudice will be cause to the plaintiffs. But the respondent/petitioner/defendant has come up with this objection after a long time that too after the examination of PW1. But at the same time to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to put forth his defence in full form this Court is of the view that the petition can be allowed but on cost and accordingly allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the revision petitioners to be paid on or before 19.08.2009 and post the matter to be called on 28.09.2009.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs urges before this Court that the impugned order of the Court in I.A.No.126 of 2009 dated 10.08.2009 is an erroneous one in the eye of law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial Court should have seen that the respondent/defendant in projecting the Additional written statement has not given no cogent reasons and has filed the application under Order 8 Rule 9 as a matter of right and by allowing the I.A.No.126 of 2009 the nature of suit has been changed and that will result in a denovo trial and it will be against the interest of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, but these aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective and the reasons sought by the respondent/defendant in praying permission of the trial Court to receive the Additional written statement in issue are clearly an after thought and they are mentioned with the sole aim of protracting the suit and as a matter of fact the contentions sought to be raised in the Additional written statement are within the knowledge of the respondent at the time of filing of the original written statement and practically there are no explanations forthcoming on the part of the respondent/defendant as to why the issues sought to be raised in the Additional written statement have not been projected in the original written statement and apart from the above there is almost a delay of nine years in filing the Additional written statement and on this ground alone the application has to be dismissed and the trial court by allowing the I.A.No.126 of 2009 has granted leave to the respondent/ defendant to present a fresh pleading and what has been sought for by the respondent/defendant are not the amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same are under Order 8 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and in short the respondent/ defendant has projected the I.A.No.126 of 2009 with the malafide intention to drag on the suit proceedings and these factual and legal aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the trial Court in a real perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that mere delay is not a ground to refuse the reception of Additional written statement and the respondent/defendant earlier has engaged a counsel and later the counsel for the respondent has been changed and only the counsel who has come into a picture subsequently has filed the application in I.A.No.126 of 2009 and even