SAROJ KUMAR MEHER Vs. SHANTI MEHER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole grievance of the petitioner in filing this case is that in absence of any legal provision in the Civil Procedure Code, the trial court has allowed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. at the instance of the plaintiff seeking liberty to file additional written statement, which order contravenes the provision of law, and therefore, a request is made by Sri T.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner for interfering with the impugned order and setting aside the same.

(2.) Sri J.Sahu, learned counsel for O.Ps.1 & 2- plaintiffs, on the other hand taking this Court to the observations made in the impugned order submitted that for the observations and finding therein, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.) Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court takes note of the provision at Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C., which reads as follows :-