An additional written statement must not set up a totally new case or state of facts varying with the original written statement, and it can only be filed when required by the court.

The Revision petitioner/12th defendant has projected the civil revision petition as against the order in I.A.No.1641 of 2005 in O.S.No.278 of 2003 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The trial Court while passing order in I.A.No.1641 of 2005 has inter alia held that "other defendants have mentioned the details projected by the revision petitioner in their additional written statement and as such the plea of the revision petitioner in regard to the filing of his additional written statement cannot be accepted and further that the documents have been filed and that the witnesses have been examined and resultantly dismissed the application."

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/12th Defendant urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.1641 of 2005 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law and that the trial court has not appreciated the fact that the revision petitioner/12th Defendant has adopted the written statement filed by D1 and D11 and further the D1 and D11 have also filed the additional written statement raising additional contentions and in fact, only the same contentions are raised by the revision petitioner/12th Defendant in the additional written statement of D1 and D11 and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.No.1641 of 2005 and moreover, the trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner will not involve raising of new issues requiring any additional evidence and the rule of pleading is that an issue cannot be raised by a party without a plea in that regard and this crucial aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial court in proper perspective and by allowing the I.A.No.1641 of 2005 no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition to prevent the aberration of justice.

4. In support of the contention that the revision petitioner must be given an opportunity to raise legal questions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/12th Defendant cites a decision in Subramanian and others Vs Jayaraman (1999) 3 M.L.J at page 216, wherein this Court has inter alia held that

"only if the defendants introduce entirely different case in additional written statement so as to prejudice the other side, their application liable to be rejected and therefore it is not reasonable to deny the petitioner opportunity to resort to raise legal questions, etc.,"

He also brings to the notice of this Court the another decision in M.Thangavel Pillai V. The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirapalli, (2001) 2 M.L.J. at page Nos.36 and 37, wherein this Court has observed that

"In the case on hand, the respondent only attempted to reinforce what has been stated in the original written statement by furnishing the details about the suit schedule property which, unfortunately the petitioner has omitted to mention in his plaint which he ought to have done. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondent was attempting to plead a different case than what has been pleaded in the original written statement. In those circumstances, the action of the Court below in permitting the respondent to file the additional written statement cannot be found fault with."

5. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that almost all the other defendants have adopted the written statement of D1 and D11 and that the additional written statement of D1 and D11 have been accepted by the trial Court and the averment of the revision petitioner/12th Defendant in his additional written statement to the effect that the channel in entirety on the lower side in survey number runs in his land has already been made mention of in the additional written statement