IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3877 of 2009 Between Majeti Muralikrishna … Revision Petitioners & Ors. V/s. Majeti Ramakrishna Prasad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri Srinivas Emani Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.R. Prasad THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3877 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the orders dated 30-7-2009 passed in I.A.No. 441 of 2009 in OS.No. 96 of 1997 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, allowing the application filed by the second defendant under Order-VI, Rule-17, Order-VIII, Rule-9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to permit him to file additional written statement, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the main suit. 2. The main ground urged on behalf of the Revision Petitioners is to the effect that on the earlier occasion similar exercise was made and the same was rejected and this court has confirmed the said order. However, with the said same allegation, the present allegation is ushered in the same pleas, which stood already negatived. Therefore, at this stage, after a lapse of long time, the present application is not maintainable nor any interference can be shown. Hence, this Revision. 3. Having heard both sides, ultimately the question is with regard to discretion of exercise by the court below, when the ground on which earlier additional written statement was rejected is different, filing the present application to receive almost same additional written statement is not barred by resjudicata. Hence, the court below has rightly rejected the contention of the revision petitioners (respondents) that the present application is liable to be rejected on the ground of resjudicata cannot be accepted. It is now well settled that the defendant can raise all pleas. Be that as it may, leaving it open for the Revision Petitioners to raise necessary objections and pleas at the time of further enquiry or arguments. I do not find any merit in this revision to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is an ample discretion especially taken into consideration and there is no reason warranting any interference. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 29-04--2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3877 OF 2009 CIRCULATION ENTRY No.7 1 Date: 29-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43