V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is a defendant in o. S. No. 86 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, srikakulam. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 89,240/- based on a promissory note. Along with the said suit, the respondent plaintiff filed an application being I. A. No. 152 of 2001 under order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908, (CPC) seeking attachment before judgment. The trial Court by proceedings dated 23-3-2001 directed the defendant to furnish security for a sum of rs. 89,240/- (Rupees eighty nine thousand two hundred forty only) and also to show cause as to why he should not furnish such security within forty eight hours. A warrant was duly issued to be served through bailiff of the Court. Even before the same could be served, it appears the father of the petitioner, who is practising advocate in Srikakulam, furnished security for the sum as directed by the trial Court and thereafter in obedience to subsequent memo issued by the Court of the ii Additional Junior Civil Judge, the Court bailiff returned the warrant of attachment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 943 of 2004 seeking leave of the Court under order VIII Rule 9 of CPC to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement. By impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by which, the present civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Be it also noted that in the additional written statement, the petitioner herein soughfto make counter claim for an amount of Rs. 50,0007- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards damages for undesirable attachment obtained by the respondent allegedly making false allegations. ( 3 ) THE learned couruel for the petitioner, sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, submits that the petitioner and his father are living in the same house, that the famiiv possessed property worth about Rs. 50 lakhs, but so as to defame and degrade the family, the respondent got issued a notice under order XXXVIil Rule 5 causing immense damage to the reputation of the family, that the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for such attachment on false grounds and therefore the petitioner is justified in filing additional written statement. 50 lakhs, but so as to defame and degrade the family, the respondent got issued a notice under order XXXVIil Rule 5 causing immense damage to the reputation of the family, that the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for such attachment on false grounds and therefore the petitioner is justified in filing additional written statement. According to the learned counsel, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the lower court ought to have allowed the additional written statement, in which the petitioner made a counter claim of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only ). ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent, Sri M. Jagannatha Sarma, submits that the attachment as such was never effected and therefore the question of petitioner seeking damages or compensation would not arise. Secondly, he would urge that in the application filed by the respondent, a notice was issued to show cause as to why petitioner should not furnish security within forty eight hours, and when security was furnished by the father of petitioner, warrant was returned by the plaintiff. The learned counsel has produced necessary documents to that effect. He further submits that in the affidavit accompanying I. A. No. 943 of 2004, the petitioner admitted that in the guise of the attachment, what was sought to be seized are movables of the father and therefore the allegation that the order of the trial Court has resulted in defaming the petitioner is not correct. According to the learned counsel, if a person suffers prejudice from an unwarranted attachment, remedy lies under section 95 of CPC and not by way of a counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A of cpc. ( 5 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Judge was correct in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file additional written statement. ( 6 ) ORDER VIM of CPC, which deals with, "written statement, set-off and counter-claim" has undergone amendments by reason of central Act No. 46 of 1999 as well as Central act No. 22 of 2002. After amendment, a defendant in a suit is required to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons. ( 6 ) ORDER VIM of CPC, which deals with, "written statement, set-off and counter-claim" has undergone amendments by reason of central Act No. 46 of 1999 as well as Central act No. 22 of 2002. After amendment, a defendant in a suit is required to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons. But the proviso to Order VIM Rule 1 of CPC enables the court to permit the defendant to file a written statement not later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. If a counter claim is to be made, Rule 6-A of Order VIII of cpc contemplates that a defendant in addition to his right of pleading a set off under Rule 6 may make a counter claim against the plaintiff with reference to a cause of action accruing to such defendant either before or after filing of the suit. Ordinarily, therefore, when once the written statement is filed, the defendant cannot be permitted to file additional pleadings. But, Rule 9 carves out an exception. A reference may, therefore, be made to Order VIM Rule 9 of cpc, which reads as under. 9. Subsequent pleadings:- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim 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 of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. (emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) A plain reading of above provision would show that a defendant is not entitled to file additional written statement subsequent to filing of written statement without leave of the court. However, the Rule contains an exception to the effect that if the defendant makes a claim of set off or counter claim in the written statement, the plaintiff can file proceedings by way of defence. This, however, is altogether different from the claim made under section 95 of CPC by way of an application seeking compensation when an attachment or arrest before judgment has been effected on insufficient grounds. Therefore, the question is whether Section 95 of CPC would be attracted to the facts of the case. Section 95 of CPC reads as under. This, however, is altogether different from the claim made under section 95 of CPC by way of an application seeking compensation when an attachment or arrest before judgment has been effected on insufficient grounds. Therefore, the question is whether Section 95 of CPC would be attracted to the facts of the case. Section 95 of CPC reads as under. 95. Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds:- (1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last preceding section, (A) it appears to the Court that such arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds, or (B) the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the same, the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount, not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him: provided that a Court shall not award, under this Section, an amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. (2) An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction. ( 8 ) A reading of above provision would show that when an attachment is effected and the Court comes to a conclusion that such attachment was applied for on insufficient grounds or when the suit of the plaintiff fails, liberty is given to the defendant to make an application for compensation. It is not only when attachment is effected, but also when the Court decides that such attachment is applied for on insufficient grounds, that a defendant can file an application. It is not denied before this Court that though the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of CPC, the Court did not grant an order of attachment before the judgment. The Court only issued a show cause notice as to why the appellant/defendant should not furnish security within forty eight hours for the suit amount. Further, as on to-day no finding is recorded that such order was obtained on insufficient grounds. The Court only issued a show cause notice as to why the appellant/defendant should not furnish security within forty eight hours for the suit amount. Further, as on to-day no finding is recorded that such order was obtained on insufficient grounds. Therefore, the counter claim made by the petitioner by way of additional written statement was plainly not maintainable. There was no cause of action to seek counter claim under Order VIII rule 6-A. The trial Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) FURTHER, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the affidavit accompanying the interlocutory application seeking leave to file written statement, the petitioner alleged that the respondent sought to attach the movables belonging to his father to defame him. One fails to understand as to how the petitioner can feel defamed when an attempt is made to seize the movables of the father, especially when the petitioner admits that both of them are living jointly. Indeed such an eventuality did not arise and therefore the application under order VIII Rule 9 is wholly misconceived. ( 10 ) IN the result, there are no merits in the civil Revision petition and is accordingly dismissed.