THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3898 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 19.07.2010, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.16 of 2010 in O.S.No.125 of 2000, wherein and whereby, the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), praying to permit the second defendant to file additional written statement in the said suit, was allowed with costs. The petitioner is the plaintiff, the first respondent is the second defendant and the second respondent is the first defendant in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The second defendant filed the said interlocutory application after the entire trial of the suit was completed and the arguments of the plaintiff was over. It is the contention of learned counsel for the second defendant that since the beginning of the suit, the second defendant has been sailing with the first defendant, but the first defendant had dispensed with his co-operation, therefore, the second defendant was forced to file the present interlocutory application praying to permit her to file the additional written statement, at this stage. The suit is of the year 2000. The evidence was adduced by both the sides and arguments were also advanced on behalf of the plaintiff. At that stage, the present application came to be filed. No doubt, the Apex Court and various High Courts, including this Court, time and again stated that the Courts must be liberal enough while dealing with the petitions filed under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., but that does not mean that the Court can go to the extent of extending indulgence in each and every case, even in the circumstances like the present one. Apparently, there are no bona fides on the part of the second defendant in filing the present application before the Court below. Non co-operation on the part of the other defendant cannot be a ground for the second defendant to file the present interlocutory application, obviously, under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. I do not find any justification in the impugned order, passed by the Court below, and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and decree, dated 19.07.2010, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.16 of 2010 in O.S.No.125 of 2000. However, the second defendant is permitted to advance his arguments within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 24th September, 2010 dr