G. Chockalingam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 18.01.2013 in I.A. No. 45 of 2013 in O.S. No. 29 of 2011 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Erode, in and by which, the application filed by the respondents/defendants 2 and 3 to permit them to file the additional written statement, was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the respondents/defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 29 of 2011, belatedly sought permission to file additional written statement regarding the Will introduced by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. The trial Court, without properly considering the merits of the case, allowed the application seeking permission to file additional written statement, which is erroneous and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs relied on the following decisions of this Court:

"(a) 2008 (3) LW 529 (Madurai Bench) (R. Vino @ Vincentza and another v. Maria Grace Benefit Fund Ltd.):

"6. If really the Petitioners/Defendants thought that as per Clause 96 and 100, the Managing Director is n