IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4175 of 2009 BETWEEN Kongara Lakshmi. ... PETITIONER AND Bala Venkata Ramesh and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M. SUREDER RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.72 of 2009 in O.S.No.101 of 2007 dated 31.07.2009, permitting the defendants to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard both the learned counsel. 3. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.101 of 2007 for partition with respect to items 1 to 7 of plaint schedule and sought five equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiff. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed a written statement dated 21.01.2008 specifically stating in paras 8 and 9 as follows: “8. The real facts are that Late Sathyam who is father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of fourth defendant has got self acquired properties which are mentioned in item no.1 to 5 in plaint schedule. He performed marriages of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their other functions out of the earnings of item Nos.1 to 5 only. He never treated item Nos.6 and 7 are the part and parcel of item Nos.1 to 5. Item Nos.6 and 7 are exclusive property of defendant No.4. Nobody has any right over the item Nos.6 and 7. 9. Plaintiff has no right to claim partition as the father of the plaintiff gave some property to the plaintiff and defendant 2 and 3 by the time of their marriage. Even if she claims she is entitled only 1/6th share in the item Nos.1 to 5 only i.e. one share notionally to her father and each one share to all the defendants and 6th share to the plaintiff and again she is entitled to 1/5th share in 1/6th notional share of her father.” 4. It appears that the issues were settled and suit is posted for trial and the plaintiff’s evidence is practically over. At this stage, it appears that the respondents/defendants filed an application being I.A.No.72 of 2009 for leave to file additional written statement and that application has been allowed under the impugned order whereby the additional written statement also has been allowed to be taken on record. The material portion of the additional written statement, which is under serious contest by the plaintiff, is para 2, which is as follows: “2. That defendant No.1 and his father partitioned the joint family properties in the year 2002, December itself orally upon the pressure of plaintiff. On 17-12-2002 the father of defendant No.1 to 3 and plaintiff and husband of defendant No.4 divided the item Nos.1 to 5 into 5 equal shares as per the values of property.” It would be evident therefrom that with regard to item Nos.1 to 5 there is hardly any contest so far as the original written statement is concerned. However, a plea of prior partition is sought to be introduced by the additional written statement even with respect to the said item Nos.1 to 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, right in submitting that by this process the defendants cannot resile from the admissions already made in the original written statement. 6. Since it is well-settled that the admissions made in the pleadings cannot be withdrawn by the process of amending the pleadings, the defendants cannot, therefore, be permitted to resile from the specific averments, which they have made in the original written statement, particularly, the extracted paragraphs of the additional written statement, which run counter to the original written statement. Secondly, the present application is moved by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and the provision itself makes it clear that additional pleadings can be allowed only if they are in the nature of counter claim or set-off and the Court has to grant specific leave if it is permitting the additional pleadings to be filed by the parties. The present case is not a case with regard to either counter claim or set-off and neither the respondents/defendants have mentioned any specific and sufficient reason for enabling exercise of that jurisdiction from the trial Court nor the trial Court has appreciated the matter from the standpoint of the mandate under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The impugned order shows as if the trial Court was permitting the amendment of written statement, which also is not justified. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit expeditiously and dispose of the same on or before the end of April 2011, as the plaintiff’s evidence is said to be closed already. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 27, 2011 DSK