The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 03.12.2014 made in I.A.No.716 of 2014 in O.S.No.198 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

2. The petitioners are defendants 5 and 6 and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari. The respondent filed the said suit for injunction restraining the petitioners and other defendants from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, particularly not to obstruct the pathway, cart track and not to damage the Mettur Left bank channel by means of permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement on 01.11.2005 and are contesting the suit. The trial commenced and when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioners filed I.A.No.716 of 2014 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for permission to receive additional written statement filed along with the application. Though the petitioners filed additional written statement along with counter claim, they have filed the application only for permission to file additional written statement.

3. According to the petitioners, it is only the respondent is trying to interfere with their right to use the common cart track. On 14.06.2014, the respondent damaged the underground P.V.C. pipe line laid by the petitioners in the suit property. In view of the same, it is necessary to file additional written statement with counter claim.

4. The respondent filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made in the said application. He submitted that the petitioners are introducing a new case. No such incident had taken place on 14.06.2014. The alleged incident on 14.06.2014 is only an after thought for the purpose of filing additional written statement with counter claim and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and judgment relied on by the counsel for the respondent, dismissed the application holding that the petitioners have not mentioned the above fact in the written statement already filed and the petitioners have not stated what are all the particulars not mentioned in the written statement already filed.

6. Against the said order of dismissal dated 03.12.2014 made in I.A.No.716 of 2014 in O.S. No.198 of 2005, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.716 of 2014 and contentions raised in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition and in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2012 (4) CTC 807 (A. Nandagopala Krishnan v. Antony);

“12. Thus, taking a cue from the above dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the view that the Court must lean in favour of full and complete justice. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent, there is clear factual foundation even in the original Written Statement filed by the Defendant and he has put forward his contention regarding the counter-claim against the Plaintiff except seeking for cancellation of impugned sale deed. Therefore, no question of prejudice being caused to the Petitioner/Plaintiff by allowing amendment of the Written Statement to incorporate a counter-claim.”

(ii) 2016(2) CTC 167 (P. Ramasami and others v. Nagai Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Limited, represented by its Managing Director, R.K. Ravi, No.8, Santhana pillai lane, Nagapattinam.)

“14. It is to be remembered that the principle under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC is that no pleading subsequent to the filing of Written Statement shall be presented by a party before the Court of Law except with permission of the said Court.

15. In regard to the filing of Additional Written Statement is concerned, the ingredients of Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC provide an ample power to the Court of Law to grant le