The discretionary power to allow the reception of additional written statements under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised with utmost care and circumspection to prevent an aberration of justice and promote the substantial cause of justice.

1. The Petitioners/Defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 03.02.2010 in I.A.No.33 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2004 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, in dismissing the Application (filed by the Petitioners/Defendants) under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for permission to receive the Additional Written Statement.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants submits that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing I.A.No.33 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2004 (praying for permission of the Court to receive the Additional Written Statement) on the ground that the Petitioners are not entitled for obtaining an Order, as prayed for and further, the alleged fact pleaded in the Additional Written Statement is one which is new set of facts, cannot be allowed to be introduced in the suit, when the suit is that too in Part Heard Stage and the said reason so assigned by the trial Court is not within the four parameters of law.

3. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants submits that the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins the Court of Law to receive the Additional Written Statement at any stage of the pending proceedings before it and furthermore, in regard to the reception of subsequent pleadings/Additional Written Statement, a liberal/lenient view has to be taken, with a view to advance the cause of Justice.

4. It is the plea of the Petitioners/Defendants that the averments “the pucca Well 70 feet depth and a septic tank about 12 feet length, are not found within the four boundaries of the suit property” are not earlier made mention of in the Original Written Statement filed by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants and by introduction of these averments for which permission is sought for from the Court, if such permission is granted by the trial Court and consequently, the Petitioners/Defendants are permitted to receive the Additional Written Statement, then, no prejudice will be caused to any one much less the Respondent/Petitioner.

5. Furthermore, the aforesaid averments mentioned in the Additional Written Statement are not a new set of facts. By permitting those facts/averments to be mentioned in the Additional Written Statement will only help the case of the Revision Petitioners/Defendants. The Application should not have been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said facts will alter the character/nature of pleadings set out by the Petitioners in the Original Written Statement.(Notwithstanding that the main suit is in Part Heard Stage after examination of DW1 and the matter is posted for further evidence of other Dws).

6. Repelling the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff submits that in the Ex.A.1 Sale Agreement, dated 11.06.2003, entered into between the respective parties in the schedule of property, there is a mention of Electricity Service Connection including a Well with one HP Motor and flushout latrine, etc., Therefore when Ex.A.1 Sale Agreement speaks for itself and when the suit is in Part Heard Stage, seeking permission of the trial Court to receive the Additional Written Statement by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants is per se not maintainable. Furthermore, according to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, the recitals and contents of documents speak for itself and when the main suit is in Part Heard Stage, it is upto the trial Court to appreciate/evaluate the evidence tendered by the parties and to arrive at a proper conclusions/findings to be rendered in regard to the issues so framed in the suit.

7. In any event, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that the Order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.33 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2004 in dismissing the Application filed by the Petitioners to receive the Additional Writte