THE HON’BLE SRI JU​STICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4148 of 2009 Date:11.09.2009 Between: Kannaiah Mandadi and another. ..Petitioners AND Residnts of Gollapalle. ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4148 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against order dated 04.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.122 of 2009 in A.S.No.13 of 1985 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the I.A. The second petitioner, who is the second defendant in O.S.No.344 of 1976 filed I.A.No.122 of 2009 in A.S.No.13 of 1985 under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking to file additional written statement, which was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. The Court below held that since the suit was filed in 1976, it was not proper for the second defendant to file additional written statement with additional pleas after a lapse of nearly thirty-three years with unexplained huge delay and accordingly, dismissed the I.A on 04.08.2009. A perusal of the material on record shows that earlier, the second petitioner filed S.A.No.663 of 1998 against dismissal of A.S.13 of 1985 vide judgment dated 16.03.1998 and this Court, by order dated 11.07.2007, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1998, remanded the appeal suit to the lower appellate Court giving opportunity to the parties to let in further evidence, both oral and documentary, if they choose to do so and record appropriate findings in accordance with law. After the remand, the second petitioner filed two interlocutory applications in the appeal i.e., I.A.No.122 of 2009 seeking to file additional written statement and I.A.No.123 of 2009 seeking to file the additional documents. The lower appellate Court allowed I.A.No.123 of 2009 on 04.08.2009, however dismissed I.A.No.122 of 2009 on the same day. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the second petitioner/second defendant wanted to file additional written statement, after lapse of thirty-three years, by taking additional pleas, which in my opinion is improper. In the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the trial Court while dismissing I.A.No.122 of 2009 by the order under revision does warrant any inference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 11th September, 2009 GHN