A trial court may allow filing of an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC when trial has not commenced, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to avoid prejudice in litigations.

ORDER :

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in I.A.No.32 of 2017 in O.S.No.138 of 2009.

2.The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2009 before the Court below seeking for partition and for separate allotment of their shares in the suit schedule properties and also for permanent injunction against the defendant nos.5 to 8 not to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties.

3. Resisting the suit, the third defendant filed a written statement. However, later the third defendant, finding that the averments mentioned in her main written statement are not sufficient, intended to file an additional written statement. Therefore, the third defendant moved an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.32 of 2017 under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, seeking to permit her to file an additional written statement, which is filed alongwith the I.A..

4. Resisting the above said I.A, the plaintiffs filed a counter refuting the averments made in the IA.

5. The trial Court having considered the submissions made by both the parties, vide order dated 03.03.2017, allowed the IA. Questioning the same, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:

The suit schedule properties belonged to one Venkatesh Gowdu, who had two wives namely Gudiyamma and Pillamma, the first defendant.The said Venkatesh Gowdu died on 16.08.1981 intestate leaving his two wives, 5 daughters and one son as his legal heirs. After demise of Venkatesh Gowdu, his wife Gudiyamma also passed away without issues and also his son Ramamurthy died as bachelor. The family members of the deceased Venkatesh Gowdu are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Whileso, after the death of Ramamurthy, the plaintiffs came to know that Thirumathi.Pillamma, the first defendant had gifted ''A'' and ''B'' suit schedule properties to her son under a gift deed dated 27.11.2003 in favour of her son Ramamurthy on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by the Venkatesh Gowdu on 24.02.1997 during his life time. After the demise of Ramamurthy, the plaintiffs and the other family members demanded partition of the joint family properties. However, the first defendant namely Pillamma informed that her husband had executed a Will in the year 1997 bequeathing the suit properties in her favour and his son Ramamurthy with a condition that Ramamurthy would acquire the properties only after the death of his mother Pillamma, the first defendant herein. The Will is not a genuine one and it contains several infirmities and hence it is invalid under law since the testator Venkatesh Gowdu was not having sound and disposing state of mind and suffering from the ailments and this Will was created in the year 1977 and the fact of execution of the said Will has been suppressed by the first defendant till the death of her son Ramamurthy. There was no scope for the testator Venkatesh Gowdu to affix his left thumb impression since his both hands were paralized and also he could not even to move and there was no possibility for him to go to the Sub-Registrar Office for the registration of the Will. Therefore, denying existence of the Will claiming that the suit