RADHABAI AMMAL Vs. N LOGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in A. S. No. 106 of 2003 on the file of principal District Judge, Vellore are the Revision Petitioners herein. THE appellants in the said appeal filed i. A. No. 133 of 2004 under Order 8, Rule 9 of C. P. C. to receive Additional written Statement, which was allowed, hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioners respondents herein have originally filed the petition in I. A. No. 256 of 2000 for reception of additional written statement during the pendency of suit in O. S. No. 259 of 2000 raising the plea of limitation, estoppel and other grounds, which was however closed without passing any interim Order, hence an application in I. A. No. 133 of 2004 was taken out in the said A. S. No. 106 of 2003 for the very same relief. Considering the plea taken by the respondents, the first Appellate Court found that the trial Court has hastily dismissed the application of the respondents herein seeking permission to file Additional written Statement and came to the conclusion that sufficient opportunity has to be afforded to them and allowed the said application.

(3.) NO doubt, the defendant can file a written statement as a matter of right and for doing so, he does not have to obtain the permission of the Court for filing additional written statement. 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.