IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22195 of 2008(P) -------------------------- OS.1121/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI -18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.RAMAN, PLAKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA, PIRAVAM. 2. P.G. MANOJ, PUTHETHU HOUSE, KARIMUKAL, PUTHANKURISU. 3. NARAYANAN, S/O. CHAMI, MANNATH HOUSE, KOPMBAZHA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22195 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.1121 of 2002, on the file of Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Third respondent is the plaintiff and other respondents the other defendants. Petitioner originally filed a written statement. Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed along with Ext.P4 application seeking permission. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Munsiff did not consider Ext.P4 application in the proper perspective and dismissed the application only on the ground of delay, and Rule 9 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure enables a party to file an additional written statement with leave of the court and in such circumstances, learned Munsiff was not justified in refusing to grant the leave. W.P.(C) No.22195 of 2008 2 3. In view of the order to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 4. Rule 9 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure enables the defendant to file an additional written statement subsequent to filing of the written statement with leave of the court. A defendant is entitled to raise even inconsistent and contradictory plea. In such circumstances, learned Munsiff was not justified in dismissing the application for the sole reason that petition is belated. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that suit happened to be dismissed for default on 17.10.2005 and was restored only at a later date on 31.10.2007, and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned Munsiff. As the learned Munsiff did not consider the application in the proper perspective, Ext.P5 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in I.A.No.10845 of 2007 afresh, after hearing the parties. Writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.