THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4442 and 4173 of 2011 Dated: 18-11-2011 Common Order: These revisions are directed against the orders, both dated 29-7- 2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka rejecting I.A.Nos. 60 of 2005 and 444 of 2006 in A.S.No. 14 of 2005. The appeal A.S.No. 14 of 2005 is preferred by the revision petitioner against the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit and directing the revision petitioners’ eviction from the schedule property. I.A.No. 60 of 2005 is filed by the revision petitioner for framing an additional issue as to whether the notice issued by the respondents (the quit notice) is in accordance with law. I.A.No. 444 of 2006 is filed under Order 8 Rule 8 CPC to permit the revision petitioner-appellant to file an additional written statement. By separate orders, both dated 29-7-2011, I.A.No. 60 of 2005 and I.A.No. 444 of 2006 were rejected by the Court below. I.A.No. 444 of 2006 being an application for filing an additional written statement was rejected on the ground that the respondent had filed the suit in 1999 for her eviction and after full contest the suit was decreed and the tenant is directed to vacate and handover possession of the suit schedule property. The application was rejected principally on the ground that whatever pleas the petitioner has now seeks to take were within his knowledge at the time of filing the written statement in the suit; that in the written statement he had taken a plea that he is paying rents from 2000 after deducting the amount of Rs.500/- and he is regularly paying rents to C.C.Ranjan. The Court below found that under Order 8 Rule 8 CPC only new facts which come to the notice of the party during the pendency of the proceedings could be submitted by way of additional written statement, but not facts which are within the knowledge of the party when the original written statement is filed. As there was no pleading whatsoever as to why these pleas could not be taken when the original written statement was filed during the pendency of the suit, the lower appellate Court found no justification for allowing the application for filing additional written statement and rejected I.A.No. 444 of 2006. For reasons alike I.A.No. 60 of 2005 was also rejected. This Court discerns no error by the Court below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both the revisions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 18th November, 2011. GRR