IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3285 OF 2010 Between: Ahmed Nawaz Alladin …Petitioner A n d Mrs.Maniz Jumabhoy and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3285 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-04-2010 in I.A.No.5671 of 2007 in O.S.No.13 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed the petitioner/D-1 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.13 of 2007 against the petitioner/D-1 and second respondent/D-2 for partition and separate possession of her share in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner herein (D-1) filed written statement contesting the suit. The trial of the suit is not yet commenced. Meanwhile, the petitioner/D-1 filed I.A.No.5671 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement by including certain properties which according to him are left out of the plaint schedule. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said application by a cryptic observation that on perusal of the original written statement and additional written statement, the Court is of the view that there is no necessity to file the additional written statement by D-1 taking different and distinct pleas. Aggrieved by the same, the D-1 filed the present civil revision petition. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner-D-1 has stated that the proposed ‘D’ schedule property is an ancestral house and it was gifted in favour of his wife by his mother and as such D-1 and his wife have been in possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right with which the plaintiff or D-2 have no rights. It is further stated in the affidavit that the family owned a house in London, UK and the same was occupied by the plaintiff when her husband was employed and subsequently the said house was sold away and part of the sale proceeds were invested for purchasing a house at Singapore and that the plaintiff assured D-1 to give a share therein. The petitioner-D-1 further pleads that himself and his mother gave financial assistance to plaintiff’s husband to an extent of Rs.73 lakhs in connection with his business at Singapore. The petitioner- D-1 pleads that at the time of filing original written statement, the above aspects and certain other aspects mentioned in the proposed written statement were not adverted to due to oversight and, therefore, necessity arose to file additional written statement. 5. It is to be noted that the suit is at the threshold stage of filing pleadings and settlement of issues. The trial has not yet commenced. The petitioner-D-1 seeks permission of the Court to raise additional pleas in respect of the suit properties and certain other properties, which according to him are left out of the plaint schedule, by way of filing additional written statement. It is well settled that defendant can raise multifarious defences in his written statement. When the petitioner-defendant pleads that due to inadvertence and oversight certain pleas came to be omitted in the original written statement, there is absolutely no justification for refusing permission to raise those pleas by way of additional written statement, especially when the suit is at the threshold stage. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents inasmuch as they would be entitled to file rejoinder, if any, to meet the additional pleas raised by petitioner-D-1 in his additional written statement. Ultimately, the question as to whether or not the pleas raised by the petitioner-D-1 either in the original written statement or additional written statement are sustainable and the question as to which of the properties are liable for partition and which are to be left out of partition and which of the parties are entitled for which share and in which item, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence during the course of trial. 6. Having regard to the fact that the suit is one for partition, it is considered that the parties should be given fair opportunity to place on record all their pleas and contentions and also bring on to record all such properties which according to them are liable for partition so that the Court would be in a better position to adjudicate upon the dispute in a comprehensive and effective manner. The impugned order which is bereft of any reasons for refusing permission to the petitioner-D-1 to file additional written statement, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th March, 2011 Lrkm.