JUDGMENT

The suit is one for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaint schedule property was originally described as 28 cents of land in R.S. Nos. 82/1 and 82/3 A2. Subsequently the plaint was amended by clarifying that 28 cents is in R.S. No. 82/3 A2 only. The defendants have admittedly a right to file an additional written statement. 2. Defendants 2 to 5 thereafter filed an additional written statement wherein a counter claim was also raised. The counter claim pertained to the fixation of boundary of a pathway running through the plaint schedule property. The court below has refused to receive the additional written statement by which the counter claim was raised. This order is under challenge in this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The specific case of defendants 2 to 5 is that the cause of action arose only by virtue of the amendment of the plaint. Their contention is that the necessity to demarcate the pathway arose only after the description of the plaint schedule was altered. The plaintiff has no case that defendants 2 to 5 had delivered their defence to the amended plaint earlier. It was only in the additional written statem