ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 02.08.2018 in I.A. No. 72 of 2018 in O.S. No. 71 of 2012, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge. Mahabubnagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner (defendant No. 1), under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (in short ‘CPC’ seeking to grant leave to file additional written statement, was dismissed.

2. Head learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appeared for respondent No. 1. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 71 of 2012 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.03.2012 against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 Defendant No. 1 filed written statement. While so, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 72 of 2018 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to grant leave to file additional written statement. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff reported no counter, while respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the allegations in the petition. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide orders dated 02.08.2018. Challenging the orders, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed error in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement and filing of the same would neither change the nature of the suit nor the relief prayed and no pre-judice would be caused to the case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to file additional written statement.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court had rightly held that by way of additional written statement, the categorical admissions made by the revision petitioner in the earlier written statement can be taken away and he is not entitled to take a divergent stand by filing additional written statement. In support of his contentions and submissions, learned counsel placed relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others , 2015 (10) SCC 203 .

6. Thus, on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusing the material on record, the only question that arises for consideration is - whether the impugned order is sustainable in law?

7. Admittedly, the revision petitioner had filed written statement in the suit on 02.11.2012. The present application is filed seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the revision petitioner pleaded that in the written statement filed on 02.11.2012, certain incorrect facts have been incorporated without his knowledge. The main averments are that the defendant No. 2 fraudulently obtained gift deed in his name. The petitioner was illegally confined for a period of three weeks under threat and his signatures were taken on some stamp papers and blank papers. It is further averred that the written statement filed by him in the suit was engineered by defendant No. 2. The revision petitioner further pleaded that he executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and it was obtained fraudulently. Under these circumstances, he was advised to file additional written statement to b