IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5065 of 2011 Between: C. Munemma … Petitioner And C. Narasamma (died) and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Sitaram This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5065 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled against order, dated 04.11.2011, in I.A.No.1112 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 1997 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby the application ﬁled for ﬁling additional written statement was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner – defendant No.3 having taken a plea that she acquired the property by virtue of a gift deed, she cannot now turn round and say that her title was perfected by adverse possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner can take any number of inconsistent pleas in the written statement, that it cannot be a ground to reject application ﬁled for ﬁling additional written statement and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. The suit was ﬁled in the year 1997 for declaration of title and possession basing upon a Will. The petitioner ﬁled written statement claiming the property in question by virtue of a registered gift deed, which is marked as Ex.B2. The suit is pending for the last 14 years and the same is posted for arguments, and at belated stage the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No.1112 of 2011 for ﬁling additional written statement so as to take a plea of adverse possession. No explanation has been given by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the application for not taking such a plea when the suit was pending for the last 14 years. No doubt, under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner can be permitted to ﬁle additional written statement or additional pleadings with the leave of the Court, but at the same time it is only an enabling provision to the petitioner to ﬁle additional written statement, if certain new facts have come to her knowledge after ﬁling the written statement. It is not such a case where the pleadings now sought to be added has come to the knowledge of the petitioner after ﬁling of the written statement. Therefore, I.A.No.1112 of 2011 appears to have been ﬁled with a view to drag on the proceedings. In view of the fact that the suit is posted for arguments, there are no grounds to reopen the suit. No doubt, the trial Court dismissed the application on diﬀerent ground, but at the same time there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 28.11.2011 ES