JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. This application is directed against an order dated 5.4.1990 passed by Sri S. Prasad, Subordinate Judge-II at Saraikella in T.S. No. 55 of 1983, whereby and whereunder the said learned court allowed an application filed by the opposite party permitting him to file an additional written statement in terms of under Order 8, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The opposite party, admittedly was an employee of the petitioner as a Lecturer. The suit premises was allotted to the opposite party by the petitioner as a condition of his service. 4. Admittedly, the quarter in question belongs to Bihar State Housing Board. It also appears to be admitted that rent was used to be paid by the petitioner to the Bihar State Housing Board, and the amount of rent used to be deducted from the salary of the opposite party. 5. In the after mentioned suit, the opposite party filed a written statement. However, after both the parties closed their evidence, the suit was fixed for hearing arguments. 6. One Ajay Kumar Mishra on 6.6.1989 filed an application purported to be under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging therein that he is in possession of the said quarter in question. The said application is contained in Annexure-3 to the Civil Revision application. 7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said application which is contained in Annexure-4 to the Civil Revision Application. The learned court below rejected the aforementioned application of Ajoy Kumar Mishra. 8. The opposite party, thereafter, filed an application praying therein for leave of the court to file additional pleadings in terms of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application is contained in Annexure-6 to the Civil Revision application and as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned order, the learned court below has allowed the said application. 9. Mr. Devi Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the opposite party in his evidence admitted that he had been in possession of the suit premises till the filing of the suit and further admitted that even after relinquishing his job, he did not return the quarter in question to the petitioner nor did he vacate the same. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Devi Prasad further sum bitted that in view of the admission of the opposite party aforementioned, he should not be permitted to raise a new plea in the additional written statement. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event, in view of the fact that the application filed by Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra for getting himself impleaded as a party to the suit was dismissed the impugned order would amount to review of the court's earlier order dated 18.7.1989 (Annexure-5). 12. Mr. S.K. Chattopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand, submitted that by reason of the impugned order, the learned court below has merely permitted the opposite party to bring some subsequent events on record. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the impugned order dated 5.4.1990 it would be evident that the defendants are in possession of various documentary evidences to prove the statements made in the said additional written statement. 14. According to the learned counsel, the court acted within its jurisdiction to permit the opposite party to file additional written statement, in view of the event which occurred subsequent to the filing of his written statement. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied upon a decision of this Court in Rohan Lal Chondhary vs. Prem Prakash Gupta (AIR 1980 Patna, Page-59). 13. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event, as by reason, of the impugned order, the plaintiff has not been prejudiced at all, this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied upon a decision of this Court in Chairman & Anr. vs. Mahadeo Prasad & Ors. [ (1990) 1 BLJR 194 : 1990 (1) PLJR 92 ]. 16. Order VIII, Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows :- “Subsequent pleadings.-No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set off (or counter claim) shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same." 17. It is now well known by reason of the various decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court that the Court may allow a party to bring on records the events which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit in order to do complete justice between the parties. Such subsequent events can be allowed to be brought on record by the Court in exercise of its power conferred under Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for that purpose, there can not be any doubt that it may grant leave to the parties to file additional pleadings in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. In Rohan Lal Choudhary vs. Prem Prakash Gupta (AIR 1980 Patna, Page-59), this Court held a follows :- “I can imagine yet another situation of filing of a subsequent pleading under the provisions of this rule by either party if it wants to bring to the notice of the Court any subsequent event having taken place which must be allowed to do as having a bearing on the controversy in the case.” 19. It is true, as has been contended by Mr. Devi Prasad that by reason of an order dated 13.7.1989 (Annexure-5), the learned court below itself rejected an application filed by the aforementioned Ajay Kumar Mishra for impleading him as a party to the suit. However, this said application was evidently not maintainable in view of the fact that the court was not expected to widen the scope of the suit by raising an issue as to whether Ajay Kumar Mishra was rightly inducted as a tenant by Bihar State Housing Board or not. 20. The subsequent event sought to be brought on records by the defendant opposite party to the effect that Ajay Kumar Mishra, in fact, was allowed to occupy the quarter in question by the petitioner is an issue which would arise for consideration by and between the parties to the its. 21. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that the impugned order can not be said to have been passed by the learned court without jurisdiction. 22. 21. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that the impugned order can not be said to have been passed by the learned court without jurisdiction. 22. However, it must be observed that the learned court below must give opportunity to the petitioner also to adduce such evidence which it may think fit and proper for the purpose of controverting the evidences which might already have been brought on record or may be brought on record by the opposite party in pursuance of the impugned order. 23. In this view of the matter, this application is dismissed. However, keeping in view that the suit is one of eviction and the same was filed in the year 1983, it is directed that the opposite party must adduce additional evidences, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the learned court below give an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence. 14. The learned court below shall conclude the hearing of the suit with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. However, in the facts and circumstances of case, there will be no order as to costs.