THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3609 of 2009 Date of order: 23.11.2010 Between: Ghulam Abbas Khursasani …Petitioner and Pannala Anna Mani and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3609 of 2009 ORDER: The defendants in OS No. 1475 of 2006 on the file of the II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam filed an application in IA No. 251 of 2009 seeking leave of the court below to file additional written statement. Under the impugned order the said leave was declined and questioning the said order, this revision is preferred. Heard learned counsel for the parties. While the learned counsel for the petitioner explains the para-5 of the original written statement, he contends that by way of additional written statement the defendants only questioned the locus of the plaintiffs under the will and that as a defence, he is entitled to take inconsistent pleas in the written statement. It is also contended by him that the truth and validity of the will which is pleaded in the additional written statement is only with reference to the plaintiffs and their entitlement under the said will. The aforesaid contention, however, cannot be culled out either from the affidavit filed in support of the petition or from the proposed additional written statement. It is apparent under para-5 of the original written statement that the defendants have specifically admitted the will and in fact claimed rights under the said will, whereas in the proposed additional written statement the truth and validity of the will itself is disputed. Irrespective of the fact that as to whether the defendants can seek to file additional written statement in view of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if the additional written statement is held permissible, the same would amount to permitting the defendants to withdraw their admissions in the original written statement. The Court below was justified in not permitting the said request of the defendants. I am unable to see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 23.11.2010 KR