IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17031 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.154/1993 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. VIJAYAN,KOLLASSERIL, CHERTHALA, KIZHAKKUM MURI KOKKOTHAMANGALAM, THANEERMUKKAM. 2. SARASAMMA, W/O VIJAYAN DO....DO..... BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- HARILAL, S/O RAGHAVAN, HARIVILAUATH, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER-OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.N.CHANDRAGUPTHAN, KIZHAKKEDATH, CHERTHALA P.O., BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17031 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order wherein additional written statement filed by the petitioners was not accepted. The plaint was amended. Petitioner filed I.A.No. 393/2004, an application to amend the written statement incorporating additional plea. It was rejected by the trial court and it was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.23512/2005. This Court as per judgment dated 12.3.2004 upheld the finding of the trial court and observed that petitioners can file an additional written statement, in answer to the amended plaint claim. Thereafter, petitioners filed an additional written statement incorporating contentions, which was not in respect of the amended plaint claim, but reiterating the contentions which was sought to be raised earlier by amendment and rejected by the trial court and upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23512/2005. Under Ext.P2 order, additional written statement was not accepted. It is challenged in this petition. W.P.(C) No.17031/2008 2 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though there is a provision under Rule 10 Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure, to reject a plaint, there is not provision for rejecting an additional written statement. But an additional written statement could be filed as provided under Rule 9 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure only with the leave of the court. It mandates that leave of the court shall be obtained. When the attempt of the petitioners was to introduce a plea, which was rejected earlier, by dismissing the application for amendment, petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the same, by way of a subsequent pleading, as provided under Rule 9 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure. The court was justified in rejecting the leave sought for. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P2 order warranting interference. Petition is dismissed. But petitioners are at liberty to file additional written statements defending the amended claim alone, if such additional written statements along with a petition to receive it under Rule 9 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure is filed, within 10 days from today, Munsiff to receive the same. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.