ORDER: Aggrieved by an order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A. No.531 of 2000, refusing to permit the revision petitioner/ defendant to file an additional written statement in a suit in O.S. No.73 of 1999, filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs for declaring that the first respondent/ first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner/ defendant and the respondents 2 and 3/ plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the legitimate sons of the revision petitioner/ defendant and for costs, the defendant has filed the above revision. 2. In brief, the respondent/ plaintiffs claim that the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff married one Soundraju on 4.12.1995 and the respondents 2 and 3/ plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to them on 9.10.1956 and 12.6.1962 respectively. As the status of relationship of Soundaraju with the 1st respondent/ 1st plaintiff as husband and wife and the relationship of Soundaraju with respondents 2 and 3/plaintiffs 2 and 3 as father and sons were disputed, the respondents/ plaintiffs have filed the above suit, seeking a declaration, as prayed for. 3. The suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/ defendant, denying the very marriage between Soundaraju and the first respondent/ first plaintiff on 4.12.1955 and the averment that respondents 2 and 3/plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to them, inter alia contending that Soundaraju married one Dhanalakshmi on 14.7.1965 and registered the same before the competent authorities. 4. Thereafter, by an interim application in I.A.No.531 of 2000, the revision petitioner/ defendant proposed to file an additional written statement under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., raising a subsequent pleading that he was not in India on 4.12.1995 at all; but the same was resisted by the respondents/ plaintiffs, contending that the revision petitioner/ defendant attempts to drag on the proceedings. 5. The learned Judge, Family Court, Pondicherry, by order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A. No.531 of 2000, accepting the case of the respondents/ plaintiffs and finding that the revision petitioner/ defendant has not made any set-off or counter-claim, refused to grant the leave to file an additional written statement. Hence, the above revision. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant and the respondents/ plaintiffs reiterated their submissions, which were argued before the Court below. 7. Hence, the above revision. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant and the respondents/ plaintiffs reiterated their submissions, which were argued before the Court below. 7. In this connection, I am obliged to refer O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. which 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”. 8. A reading of the above makes it clear that the mere want of claim to set-off or counter-claim, by itself, cannot be a ground to refuse leave for granting permission to raise subsequent pleadings. In other words, even in the absence of any claim or set-off or counter-claim, the Court, if satisfied, can grant leave to raise subsequent pleadings, and therefore, what is required under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. is that the defendant should satisfy the Court as to the relevancy of the subsequent pleadings, and while granting such leave, the discretion conferred on the Court under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., should be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice, of course, without encouraging the parties to bring a new case by furnishing new details. 9. Yet another consideration in exercising the discretion and granting leave under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. would be to see whether the plaintiff is prejudiced by such subsequent pleadings in any way. In the absence of any prejudice by such subsequent pleadings, in my considered opinion, the discretion conferred on the Court under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., should be exercised liberally; as otherwise, it will not be possible for the parties to the litigation to prove their respective case, in consolidate, as a result of which, finality of the litigation will not be reached, giving way for multiplicity of litigation, and consequently, ends of justice will not be met. 10. In the instant case, the marriage between the first plaintiff and Soundaraju on 4.12.1955, as pleaded in the plaint, was disputed even at the very first instance. 10. In the instant case, the marriage between the first plaintiff and Soundaraju on 4.12.1955, as pleaded in the plaint, was disputed even at the very first instance. Only to substantiate the above plea, the revision petitioner/ defendant seeks leave to file an additional written statement, stating that he was not present at Pondicherry on 4.12.1955. If that be so, by granting leave to the revision petitioner/ defendant to file an additional written statement, will not, in any way, prejudice the respondents/ plaintiffs, even though the revision petitioner/ defendant does not seek any set-off or counter-claim in the additional written statement, as the facts of the case and the relief sought for in the plaint, do not warrant such plea of set-off and counter-claim. Hence, finding that the refusal to grant leave to the revision petitioner/ defendant to file an additional written statement by order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A. No.531 of 2000 is unjustified, the same is set aside and the revision is allowed, without prejudice to the right of the respondents/ plaintiffs to contest the plea raised by the revision petitioner/ defendant in a manner known to law, with a further direction to the learned Judge, Family Court, Pondicherry, to try the suit and pass appropriate order on merits, expeditiously. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10637 of 2001 is closed.