Judgment :- 1. Defendant in O.S. 1499 of 1995 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Thiruvannamalal is the Revision Petitioner. Suit filed by plaintiff was orie for declaring his title to scheduled property and to recover possession from defendant. Profits were also claimed from defendant. 2. Defendant filed written statement on 2.2.1999. Thereafter, the suit was posted for trial in the list. Plaintiff was examined in chief and was cross-examined on two days. Thereafter, an application was filed by petitioner as I.A. 132 of 1999 to receive additional written statement. In the affidavit in support of the petition petitioner alleged about sub-division of the property, that he came to know only after filing earlier written statement and consequently, he seeks to file additional pleadings. 3. The same was seriously opposed by plaintiff by filing a counter. 4. By the impugned order, lower Court held that the case put forward in the affidavit is not true and no sufficient cause is shown for not taking the present contention in the earlier written statement. The application was dismissed and permission sought for was refused. The same is challenged in this Revision Petition. 5. In AIR 1958 Madras 383 = (1957) 70 L.W. 976 ( Nanjan v. Selai ), it is held thus, “ If the party wants to file an additional written statement, he has to file a petition stating the reason why he failed to say these things in the original written statement, and what excuse there is for allowing him to file an additional written statement at that stage then the other side has to be given an opportunity to oppose the petition and contend that such additional written statement should not be entertained at ‘that stage. Then the Court has to give its decision as to whether the additional written statement is to he admitted or not. ” (emphasis supplied) 6. In AIR 1976 Madras 302 ( Marutthi Gounder v. Karuppanna ), their Lordships held that the, defendant is entitled to take inconsistent stand and he can also be permitted to file additional written statement. But their Lordships further held that whether permission could be granted for filing additional written statement, will depend on certain circumstances. ” (emphasis supplied) 6. In AIR 1976 Madras 302 ( Marutthi Gounder v. Karuppanna ), their Lordships held that the, defendant is entitled to take inconsistent stand and he can also be permitted to file additional written statement. But their Lordships further held that whether permission could be granted for filing additional written statement, will depend on certain circumstances. In para 9 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus: “This is a case where nearly two years after having filed his written statement, the first defendant had acquired some further information and wanted to set up a case which is different from the case which he had originally set up in his written statement. Considering the stage at which such an application has been filed, undoubtedly, prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff who will now be forced to file a reply statement and as a consequence thereof, fresh and different issues will have to be framed and the trial would have to begin once over again .” (emphasis supplied) 7. In this case, even though it is not two years, plaintiffs evidence already began and mostly over. At this stage, defendant came with the present application. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted relying on the decision reported in 1995 Supp (3) S.C.C. 179 ( Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary ), that defendant is entitled to take inconsistent positions. Learned Counsel relied on the following passage: “The Courts below have gone wrong in holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. by taking a contrary stand to what was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to the settled law. It is open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, thereby the cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action.” 9. It is true that defendant may be in a position to take inconsistent stand. But that is not the question that has to be decided in this case. Under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, no pleadings after written statement filed can be received except with the leave of the Court. It is true that defendant may be in a position to take inconsistent stand. But that is not the question that has to be decided in this case. Under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, no pleadings after written statement filed can be received except with the leave of the Court. Naturally, when leave is sought for, petitioner will have to explain why the present contention was not raised on the earlier occasion. Pleadings cannot be filed piecemeal. Even if inconsistent stand could be taken, that does not follow that defendant can file written statement at any time as he chooses and even without showing sufficient cause. 10. On the basis of the decisions, which I have extracted earlier, I find that no sufficient cause is shown and the explanation is also very much belated. 11. An argument was taken by learned counsel for petitioner that they came to know about the sub-division only some time before filing additional written statement. 1 do not find that the said submission is correct. In the earlier written statement itself various contentions have been taken on the basis of sub-division. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the earlier written statements itself show that petitioner was aware of the sub-division. In fact, the definite case of respondent is that the sub-division was effected even in the year 1950. Once the reason stated is found to be false, the leave sought for can only be refused. 12. When the leave is sought for and the same is refused by lower Court, for certain reasons, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure will be very much limited. This Court can only consider whether lower Court has exercised the discretion properly with judicial mind or whether it has exercised discretion arbitrarily. Once it is found that-discretion has been exercised applying judicial mind, interference under Section 115 cannot be had. 13. While disposing of the interlocutory application, lower Court has made certain observations affecting the merits of the case. It is well settled that when considering interlocutory applications of this nature, Court should not consider the merits of the case. The observations made in the impugned order will not be taken into consideration while the suit is disposed of on merits. 14. In the result, with the above observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. It is well settled that when considering interlocutory applications of this nature, Court should not consider the merits of the case. The observations made in the impugned order will not be taken into consideration while the suit is disposed of on merits. 14. In the result, with the above observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 5446 of 1999 is also dismissed.