JUDGMENT

Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P4 order passed in I.A.No.4/2022 in O.S.No.37/2020 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The background facts leading to Ext.P4 order, in a nutshell, are: the respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner for compensation. The petitioner has resisted the suit through Ext.P2 written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4/2022 (Ext.P3) seeking leave to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short, 'Code'). The court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has dismissed Ext.P3 application. Ext.P4 is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Syam J. Sam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Is Ext.P4 order erroneous, is the short question that arises for consideration in the original petition.

5. It is well settled, an application filed under Order

8 Rule 9 of the Code, seeking leave to file subsequent pleadings, is to supplement, clari