The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defendant cannot introduce an entirely new case through an additional written statement.

1. The second defendant in O.S. No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Tract Court No. I, Thanjavur is the petitioner. The plaintiff in the said Suit is the first respondent. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the respondents 2 to 4 herein. The petitioner/second defendant, who has suffered an order in I.A. No. 769 of 2006 in which he has prayed for filing an additional written statement, has filed the present revision to set aside the said order.

2. The short facts of the case is as follows:

The first respondent has filed the Suit in O.S. No.7 of 2004 against the petitioner and other respondents for partition and separate possession. In the said Suit, the petitioner being the second defendant has filed the written statement repudiating the contentions raised in the plaint. While so, he has filed an Application in I.A. No.769 of 2006 under Order 8, Rule 9 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for receiving additional written statement. The said application has been dismissed by the Court and the present Revision is directed against the said order. In the affidavit in support of the said Application, the petitioner has averred that due to high regard which he had for his elder brother, the first defendant, he has been prevailed over to sign the statement prepared by the first defendant. Now realising the position, it has become necessary for him to tell the truth before the Court by filing the additional written statement. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has given a go-bye to the pleadings raised in the original written statement and in the additional written statement totally he is seeking to introduce a new case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inconsistent plea can be taken in the written statement and the Court below should have allowed the Application filed by the petitioner for reception of additional written statement. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in T.R. Govindasamy and others v. T.R. Natarajan and others, 2004 (4) CTC 759. By citing the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that under the said judgment, it has been held that Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. gives wide power to Courts to give permission to the defendant to file additional written statement. But, in the same judgment, the learned Judge has observed that if the additional written statement did not create any new case or did not amount to inconsistent plea and if the additional written statement is in the nature of giving details regarding character of properties, then it can be received. Hence, the said judgment will not be of any use to the petitioner.

4. Another judgment that has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram v. Gnanasoundari, 2004 (5) CTC 644. The said judgment deals with Order 6, Rule 16, C.P.C., namely, striking out pleadings in the written statement. The said judgment will not also be of any use to the petitioner.

5. Yet another judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in Radhabai Ammal v. N. Loganathan, 2005 (5) CTC 38. Even in the said judgment, it has been held as follows:

"Permission of the Court has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion has to be exercised depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and in all such cases, the party, who seeks leave has to explain as to why this contention was not raised in the earlier pleadings. While exercising the discretion,-the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of the litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship."

The said judgment clearly says that the leave can be granted depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The said judgment also does not help the petitioner.

6. The other decision that has been cited by the learned counsel