THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2687 OF 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner filed O.S.No.200 of 2006 against the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa for the relief of partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. The petitioner and respondents are brothers. The respondents took the plea that the petitioner was given in adoption and thereby he is totally detached from their family. The petitioner intended to file a rejoinder dealing with the question of adoption raised in the written statement. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.582 of 2009 under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC, with a prayer to receive the rejoinder/reply statement. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order dated 02.05.2009. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondents are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The effort of the petitioner in filing I.A No.582 of 2009 was to put on record the statement as regards the plea of adoption raised by the respondents. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there is neither a set off nor a counter-claim in the written statement filed by the respondents. The approach of the trial Court is not correct. In case, there exists any counter-claim or set off, the plaintiff has an independent right to file a written statement. The one sought to be presented by the petitioner is of the description of further pleadings provided for under Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC. In T.Laxman Kumar vs. G.Laxmikantha Reddy[1], this Court explained the significance and relevance of further pleadings. The discussion undertaken in that judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. The very necessity to deliver further pleadings is to deal with an aspect which is somewhat strange to the pleadings in the plaint. Counter-claim and set off on the other hand would give an independent right to the plaintiff to file a written statement. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the trial Court shall permit the petitioner to file a rejoinder/reply statement confined to the question of adoption. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 7th August, 2009 vrn [1] 2004 ALT (6) 493