HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5039 OF 2010 ORDER: Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No.115 of 2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners herein figured as defendants 2 to 5. Written Statement was filed by the 1st petitioner herein and the same was adopted by the other petitioners. 2. The suit schedule property was sold by the 1st petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (defendants 3, 4 and 5) through document, dated 11-04-2008. Stating that the transfer in favour of the petitioners 2,3 and 4 herein took place during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No.541 of 2009 under Rule – 9 of Order – VIII CPC with a prayer to permit them to file an additional written statement. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 04-10-2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is only under extraordinary circumstances that a Court can permit the defendant in a suit to file an additional written statement. Such extraordinary circumstances are not pleaded in the instant case. The only ground pleaded by the petitioner is that the suit schedule property was sold by the 1st petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2,3 and 4 through document, dated 11-04-2008. Even if that is true, it is a matter to be discussed with reference to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. Be that as it may, since the effort of the petitioners is only to bring the factum of sale of the property during the pendency of the suit on record, the same result can be secured through another means, viz., by permitting amendment of the written statement, which is already on record. Since the suit is of the year 2005, it cannot brook any further delay. Enabling the petitioners herein to file an application for amendment may further add to the delay. This Court indicated that the factum of sale of the property can be brought on record by permitting addition of a sentence to that effect in the written statement filed by the 1st respondent without necessity of instituting any further application. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of upholding the order under revision, but directing that a sentence, viz., “The 2nd defendant executed a sale deed on 11-04-2008 in favour of the defendants 3, 4 and 5 transferring the suit schedule property” as penultimate paragraph in the written statement and the petitioners shall be under obligation to file fair copy of the written statement. The question as to whether the property covered by the said document is the same as the suit schedule property, and other related grounds, including the legality of the sale that was effected, can be urged by the respondents herein i.e. plaintiffs in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 16, 2011. KTL