COMMON ORDER :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. 

Heard Mr. V. R. Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. K. P. Narayana Kumar, learend Counsel for respondents.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are arrayed seeking direction to the Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai to strike off the addiitional written statement filed in O.S.No.44 & 45 of 2024 by the 1^st defendant dated 17.09.2025 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Viralimalai.

3. For the purpose of these revisions, this Court need not go into the details of the suit. The suits in O.S.Nos.44 & 45 of 2024 were originally presented as O.S.Nos.50 & 51 of 2019, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Keeranur. The suits are for permanent injunction. At the time of drafting the plaint, the plaintiff, instead of seeking permanent injunction against both defendants, had merely pleaded that the injunction be granted against the ''defendant''. Written statement was filed, issues were framed and the evidence was concluded.

4. At that stage, the plaintiffs noticed that, instead of showing it as ''defendants'', it had wrongly mentioned as ''defendant''. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed application in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in the respective suits under Order VI Rule 17, to rectify the typographical error. The application was opposed by the defendants. By way of a reasoned order dated 25.08.2025, the learned Principal District Munsif, Viralaimalai allowed the application and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint from using the words ''defendant'' to ''defendants''.

5. Following the procedure on allowing an amendment application, the trial Court called upon the defendants to file an additional written statement. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants filed an additional written statement running into several pages. Aggrieved, by this position taken by the defendants of filing a lengthy written statement by way of an additional written statement, the plaintiff is before this Court.

6. It is the plea of Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan that an Additional Written Statement should be confined with respect to the amendment that has been allowed and should not be taken as an opportunity to the defendants to recast the entire written statement already filed. He pleads that filing such a detailed written statement for a mere typographical error is absolutely unacceptable and the Trial Court ought not to have permitted the defendants to file such a statement.

7. Per Contra, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar urged that the defendants seek to bring certain facts which is only clarificatory of the pleas that have already been taken. He states that sale deeds, on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming title, is not a sale deed at all. This plea has already been taken by him in the original statement and since, the plaintiffs might take a defense that there cannot be any evidence without a pleading, he had expanded on the existing position in the additional written statement.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I have carefully gone through the records.

9. I am entirely in agreement with Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan that an Additional Written Statement cannot exceed the scope of amendment. It is possible that in a suit for bare injunction, an application is filed to amend the suit into one for title. In such a proceeding, the defendant would obviously be called upon to reject the title so pleaded by the plaintiff. Hence, it makes sense in such cases to expand on the plea already taken. It is also common practice that, on the death of a party, an application is filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased. On such an application being allowed, amended pleading is presented. If Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar's argument is accepted, then even in such cases the defendants, who are the adversaries, can jettison the entire pleading already taken and come forth with a new one. That is not the purport of the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. The purpose of giving an opportunity