The right to file an additional written statement after the production of new evidence and the application of relevant provisions of CPC, including Order 6 Rule 17, Order 8 Rule 5, and Order 8 Rule 9.

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 not competent to represent the plaintiff-Benefit Fund, the defendants could have very well raised the point in the written statement already filed by them. But that was not to be so."

(b) 2010 (1) CTC 93 (Sekar v. A.N. Sengodagounder):

"6. In the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, AIR 2009 SC 2544, the Supreme Court considered the scope of amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 and held as follows:

"10. At this stage, we may remind ourselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of a Plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action.

See Baldevl Singh & others v. Manohar Singh and another, AIR 2006 SC 2832...."

(c) 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 750 (Marie Louise v. Marie Bernadette):

"13. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff/respondent would specifically argue that at the first instance, in the Plaint, it was specifically averred that the Will executed by the mother was duly cancelled and this averment in the plaint was not at all denied in the written statement. If there is no specific denial, as per Order 8, Rule 5 of CPC, it tantamounts to an admission and the principle, without a plea no amount of evidence is permissible, will come into play. Therefore, when the Will has been cancelled as per law, the provisions of French Code automatically applies to the case on hand, where, after the demise of the mother, whatever property the mother inherited from her husband would devolve upon plaintiff and defendant, because the mother holds the property only as a life estate holder. Therefore, after the death of the mother, the property would automatically falls to the share of the plaintiff and defendant. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the decision reported in S. Sadagopa Ramanujam v. S.R. Rengasamy Iyengar & 2 others, 1995 (I) CTC 547, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that a denial should be specific, clear and unambiguous. In the absence of any specific denial, on the part of one of the parties, the suit has to be decreed or dismissed as the case may be in accordance with the admission made by the parties. If there is no specific denial in the written statement, it will amount to admission of the case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, a general denial is not sufficient."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/D2 and D3 contended that the trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and rightly allowed the application seeking permission to file additional written statement and hence, he prayed that the Civil Revision Petiti