ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Edappadi dated 12.10.2022.

The civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.44 of 2019.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent instituted a Suit for permanent Injunction. The trial commenced in the Suit and plaintiff side witnesses were already examined. Admittedly, the Suit is posted for examination of defendants side witnesses. At this juncture, the revision petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 seeking permission to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The revision petitioners by way of an additional written statement wanted to establish the circumstances relating to gift deed and its validity and genuinity. The gift deed was very much available even prior to the institution of the Suit by the respondents herein. While so, the revision petitioners ought to have filed the documents or their statement of defence in their written statement originally filed in the Suit. It is brought to the notice of the this Court that the revision petitioners have stated about their gift deed in the written statement and therefore, they are bound to defend their case with reference to the statement already made in the written statement. Contrarily, they cannot file an Interlocutory Application after the commencement of the trial and more so, after completion of the plaintiff side witnesses.

4. The practice of developing the case stage by stage in a Civil Suit cannot be permitted by the Courts. Parties are expected to establish their cases through plaint, written statement, documents and evidences as the case may be, which all are to be filed as per the time limit or during the appropriate stage under the Code of Civil Procedure. The practice of filing Interlocutory Applications for reopening or for filing additional written statement cannot be permitted after commencement of trial and in the event of permitting such additional written statement at the later point of time, the same would cause prejudice to either of the parties, more so, would increase the longevity of the litigation, which is impermissible. The scope of Order VIII Rule 9 cannot be expanded for the purpose of granting permission to the defendants to file an additional written statement after commencement of trial.

5. Let us consider, the scope of Order VIII Rule 9, which contemplates that “No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same”.

6. Therefore, after filing of the written statement, no pleading needs to be permitted except by way of defence to set off or counter-claim. However, if the Court in its discretion, if necessary in the interest of justice may permit by fixing time limit. Power of discretion is to be exercised judiciously and such exercise should not cause any prejudice to any of the parties. Therefore, rule is to raise all the grounds in the written statement and no additional pleading is to be permitted after commencement of trial. Only in exceptional cases, if the Court is of an opinion that such pleadings are required and in the interest of justice or vital for the purpose of deciding issues or Courts gets doubts regarding such issues, then alone the Court in its discretion may permit the parties to file such additional pleadings to the extent necessary and not otherwise. The excepti