IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1335 OF 2011 Between: Puvvada Padmavathi …Petitioner A n d Joga Anasuya ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1335 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.02.2011 in I.A.No.95 of 2011 in O.S.No.57 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel fort the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,19,296.83 Ps towards damages. The petitioner herein filed written statement contesting the suit. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the defendant executed a registered sale deed in plaintiff’s favour on 05.07.1971 for consideration and subsequently when the plaintiff was objected from making constructions by one Matta Krishna Murthy, who alleged that he purchased the property from Gandikota Bala Ramayya, and on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant sold away the said property to Gandikota Narayanamma i.e., prior to the sale in favour of the plaintiff and thereby cheated the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of damages, including the loss of future development and the defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit. 4. It is stated that necessary issues have been settled and the trial is also commenced. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the defendant filed I.A.No.95 of 2011 seeking permission to file additional written statement raising certain pleas to the effect that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and also that the suit for recovery of damages is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner/defendant has pleaded that at the time of drafting the original written statement, the said pleas were unfortunately omitted by the learned counsel who drafted the written statement. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the additional pleas now sought to be taken by the petitioner/defendant are inconsistent with the pleadings in the original written statement and also that the application is belated. 5. It is not disputed that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages on the ground that the defendant cheated him by executing a sale deed in his favour suppressing the earlier sale deed in favour of G.Bala Ramayya. The trial of the suit is now in initial stage only, in the sense P.W.1 is yet to be cross-examined. At that stage, the defendant seeks permission to raise two additional pleas viz., that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and also the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of damages without seeking the relief of declaration of title. 6. It is well settled that it is permissible for the defendant to raise multifarious pleas in his defence. The question as to whether or not the proposed additional pleas are relevant and tenable will have to be considered during the course of trial, but not at this stage. The only ground on which the plaintiff can validly oppose the application is that it is belated. As the application is filed at the threshold stage of the trial, it is considered that omission of the defendant in raising the proposed additional pleas in the original statement and filing the application after commencement of the trial can be compensated by payment costs. The petitioner/defendant is, therefore, permitted to file additional written statement subject to condition that he shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the respondent/ plaintiff within two weeks from today and in default the permission granted would stand cancelled. It is needless to state that in the event of the additional written statement being received, the respondent/ plaintiff would be at liberty to file a rejoinder and the trial Court shall frame such additional issues that may arise from the additional pleadings and dispose of the matter on its merits. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 1st August, 2011 Note: CC in two days. Lrkm.