1. The Petitioners/Defendants have focused the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 08.01.2013 in I.A. No. 6 of 2013 in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam.

2. The Learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the Impugned Order on 08.01.2013 in I.A. No. 6 of 2013 in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 (filed by the Petitioners/ Defendants 1 to 3) had observed the following:-

Heard.

In Class III of Para 38 and Para 39 of the Remand Order of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in A.S. No. 886/2006, dated 01.11.2012, it is stated as follows:-

38(3) The third point is decided to the effect that the lower court should have ordered for appointment of an auditor as Commissioner for taking accounts for the purpose of rendering justice.

39. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the lower court with the following direction.

The Lower Court shall do well to see that a qualified auditor is appointed as Commissioner to go into the accounts which were already produced and to be produced by both sides relating to the loans borrowed by D1 to D3 and also the chits subscribed by D1 to D3 and also D1's two sons and two daughters-in-law and furnish his report where upon, both sides shall be permitted to file their objections and also adduce additional evidence both oral and documentary; whereupon the court has to decide the issues untranmelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.

Opined that under the circumstances, the Additional Written Statement seeking relief of Judgment and decree for the amount to be paid by the Auditor as payable to the Defendants, at this stage could not be entertained and dismissed the petition.

3. Assailing the correctness, validity and legality of the Impugned Order dated 08.01.2013 in I.A. No. 6 of 2013 in O.S. No. 9 of 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court primarily contending that the trial court had failed to appreciate that filing of Additional Written Statement would not prejudice the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff in any manner.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners contends that by mere filing of Additional Written Statement by the Defendants, they are not entitled for any Decree, unless it is established in evidence that they are entitled for the same.

5. In effect, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that the trial court had not properly appreciated the ambit of the main suit for accounting were both parties are similarly situated and unfortunately, the trial court had not looked into the necessary facts of the case in a proper and real prospective.

6. Lastly, it is the case of the Petitioners that once the suit was remanded by this Court (as an Appellate Court) wherein a direction was issued to permit the parties to adduce the evidence, then, permitting parties to file an Additional Written Statement and reply is an automatic one.

7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that this Court in A.S. No. 886 of 2006 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff as an Appellant, had only directed the trial court to appoint a qualified Auditor as Commissioner to go into accounts, which were already produced and to be produced by both sides and relating to the loans borrowed by D1 to D3 and also the chits subscribed by D1 to D3 etc., and in fact, this Court had not permitted the Petitioners/Defendants to file the Additional Written Statement before the trial court under Order 8 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff is that in the Additional Written Statement sought to be filed by the Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3 before the trial court in I.A. No. 6 of 2013, a plea was made to the Court to pass a Decree in their favour in regard to the counter claim and the said plea is