The importance of considering the bonafide of the party in filing subsequent pleadings and the inadmissibility of delving into the merits of the additional written statement at the stage of filing.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 368 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Gudiyatham is the revision petitioner. The defendant filed application under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. for the reception of additional written statement and the same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner in the affidavit filed before the trial court has stated that he failed to state certain important facts as he had filed all the documents in another suit in O.S. No. 246 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore and the suit was filed against the plaintiffs in this case and others in respect of the suit property and other properties. The petitioner has also stated that he is an illiterate and he does not know to read and write and hence he was unable to give all the details about the title deeds and possession of the suit property and therefore, seeking permission of the court to file additional written statement. He has also stated that O.S. No. 246 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore was transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Gudiyatham due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same is pending as O.S. No. 457 of 1996. The petitioner has stated that the facts relating to his title and possession to the suit property are essential to decide the issue in the case and there is no wantonness on his own part. The defendant also filed the additional written statement along with the petition.

4. The respondents herein filed a counter resisting the said petition, stating that suit in O.S. No. 246 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore was filed in the year 1993 and the defendant filed the written statement only on 4.4.1994. Further, the respondents-plaintiffs closed their evidence on 22.10.2002 and the suit was posted in the list and thereafter only the petitioner-defendant filed the application to file additional written statement and it was done so only with a view to prolong the proceedings, as the petitioner-defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the disputed portion of the suit property. The respondents also contended that the petition has been filed belatedly.

5. Now the question is whether the petitioner-defendant has made out a case for filing additional written statement as prayed for?

6. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioner contends that certain important documents of title deeds were filed in an earlier suit in O.S. No. 246 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore and only in the said circumstances, the defendant could not give all the details in respect of the suit property and now only he remembered of the previous suit and filed the petition seeking permission of the court to file additional written statement. The revision petitioner also stated that he is an illiterate and there is no wantonness on his part in filing the additional written statement.

7. On the contrary, the learned Advocate for the respondents would contend that the defendant had already filed the written statement and the trial of the suit also commenced and the plaintiffs evidence was over by 22.10.2002 and subsequently the suit was posted for further proceedings and only at that time the defendant had chosen to file additional written statement with a view to protract the proceedings. The defendant has not explained the delay in filing the additional written statement.

8. The Court below had observed that the defendant has only elaborated in the additional written statement what has been stated in the written statement. Further, it has been observed that the application filed by the defendant after examination of the witnesses on the part of the plaintiffs is highly belated and therefore, the same cannot be allowed and dismissed the petition.

9. Order 8 Rule 8 C.P.C. provides for new ground of defence, which states as follows:—

“Any gr