P. Devadass, J.

1. This matter arises out of the order passed by learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dismissing I.A. No. 59 of 2015 in O.S. No. 460 of 2013. The said suit is for partition. Long back pleadings were completed. Now the suit has become part-heard. At this juncture, the 2nd defendant filed I.A. No. 59 of 2015 seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. It was opposed to by the plaintiff.

2. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that it is belated because it was filed after two years. Further, it is observed that although inconsistent plea can be set up, a plea in destruction of the earlier pleas cannot be permitted. Thus, the Trial Court refused to receive the additional written statement and dismissed the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a reading of the written statement and additional written statement would show that the 2nd defendant is not deviating from his earlier stand taken in the additional written statement. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiff during trial and after verification of revenue records, it has become necessary for the 2nd defendant to raise the a