ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the Principal Subordiante Judge, Pondicherry in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.189 of 2001, allowing the petition under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., and receiving additional reply statement filed by the first defendant. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. Plaintiff is entangled in the litigation relating to the family partnership business against his father - second defendant and brother-first defendant. Case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the first defendant were partners in having the business in Textiles under the name and style “Murugans” at Pondicherry in door No. 265. A showroom consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor was built over the property bearing door No.265. According to the plaintiff, in 1996, difference of opinion arose between the Brother-in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiff has alleged that they have removed the costlier goods/dress materials as well as cash. Due to the misunderstanding between the brothers, there was a suggestion by the father/second defendant, directing the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 (Rupees two crores) to the plaintiff, so that he can retire from the partnership. After six months, the first defendant has pleaded his enability to pay the amount. Hence, the second defendant suggested to the plaintiff to pay Rs.2.00,000 (Rupees two crores) to the first defendant and take the business for himself. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has totally paid a sum of Rs.95,00,000 (Rupees ninety five lakhs only); but stopped payment of further amount. The plaintiff has alleged that on account of the amount payable, the first defendant has removed valuable silk sarees, dress materials and other accessories from the shop. The first defendant had presented five cheques given by the plaintiff for collection. Since the cheques were dishonoured, the first defendant has filed criminal cases against the plaintiff under Sec.138, N.I.Act on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pondicherry. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit: (a) For dissolution of the partnership business formed between the plaintiff and the first defendant by the deed of partnership dated 6.3.1995. (b) To appoint a Chartered Accountant/Commissioner to take the accounts of the firm. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men, agents and servants of any person from interfering with the partnership business carried under the firm name “Murugans” and other reliefs. 3. (b) To appoint a Chartered Accountant/Commissioner to take the accounts of the firm. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men, agents and servants of any person from interfering with the partnership business carried under the firm name “Murugans” and other reliefs. 3. Denying the allegations in the plaint, the defendants have filed the counter statement, admitting that a sum of Rs.95,00,000 (Rupees ninety lakhs only) has been paid and that Rs.1,05,000 remains to be paid. The present suit has been filed for the dissolution of the partnership firm as well as injunction. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief in equity as the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has not paid the amount as agreed by him. Since the cheques were dishonoured, the first defendant had filed criminal complaint against the plaintiff and the same is pending. The plaintiff has started a new business under the name and style of “New Murugans” and has diverted all the funds of the business to the new firm. As per the agreement, when the first defendant had already retired, there is no question of further dissolution of partnership firm. The partnership firm had already come to an end when the first defendant received part payment of Rs.30,00,000 (Rupees thirty lakhs only) on 2.3.1998. Thereafter, the first defendant has never returned to enter the premises for carrying on the business in his capacity as a partner. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the relief sought for. Originally, father- second defendant has filed the written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. 4.I.A.No.399 of 2002: This application has been filed under Sec.94(e) and Sec.151, C.P.C., not to treat the written statement file on 15.6.2001 as part of the pleadings and to discard the written statement. Since the application was not properly filed, later the Court has permitted the first defendant to withdraw the application with liberty to file another application for filing additional written statement. 5.I.A.No.434 of 2002: The first defendant has filed this application under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., to receive the additional written statement filed by him. According to the first defendant, due to inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the Court affairs, he was not able to instruct his previous counsel regarding the real state of affair before filing the suit. His father/second defendant has engaged different counsel. According to the first defendant, due to inadvertence and lack of knowledge of the Court affairs, he was not able to instruct his previous counsel regarding the real state of affair before filing the suit. His father/second defendant has engaged different counsel. The second defendant has no connection with the partnership business except to the limited extent of suggesting the compromise. But, the first defendant’s counsel is said to have filed written statement for the second defendant (also adopted by the first defendant). The first defendant has filed additional written statement and prayed to receive the same. 6. The application was resisted by the plaintiff, contending that the defence set forth in the additional written statement is totally contradictory to the earlier defence set forth. As the additional written statement introduces new grounds of defence which is inconsistent with the previous one, the additional written statement cannot be received. 7. Learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry has allowed the application finding that there is no impediment for allowing the first defendant for filing written statement. Further, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff since the plaintiff would have the opportunity to meet out the points raised both in the written statement and in the additional written statement. The plaintiff cannot have any valid objection for receiving the additional written statement and on those findings allowed the application, ordering to receive the additional written statement. 8. Aggrieved over the receiving of additional written statement, the plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition. Elaborately referring to the defence in the earlier written statement and in the additional written statement, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the first defendant has inter-alia set forth new case. Relying upon the decision reported in M/s.Gannon Dunkerly and Company Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited, A.I.R. 1993 Ori. 141 learned counsel has further submitted that when there is inconsistency in the pleadings, application O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., ought not to have been allowed, receiving the additional written statement. It is also urged that the application to receive the additional written statement is not maintainable and that the first defendant ought to have filed only the application to amend the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2. 9. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/first defendant has pointed out that this revision is the second round of litigation. 9. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/first defendant has pointed out that this revision is the second round of litigation. Earlier in the state of interlocutory application for grant of injunction, the parties have litigated their rights by taking up the matter to the Supreme Court. It is submitted that when I.A.No.399 of 2002 was withdrawn, the second defendant was granted liberty to file fresh application under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C., to file the additional written statement. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in the additional written statement, learned counsel has further submitted that in the additional written statement, the first defendant has only elaborated his defence and that there is no inconsistency with the earlier defence set forth. It is also submitted that due to inadvertence, earlier written statement was filed on behalf of the second defendant and the same was adopted by the first defendant and that mistake cannot be urged as an impediment to file the additional written statement. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in ordering to receive the additional written statement whether there is any improper exercise of discretion warranting interference is the main point that arises for consideration in this revision petition. 11. Contending that the additional written statement is inter alia inconsistent with the earlier written statement, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has read the written statement elaborately which has been filed in the earlier stage. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that earlier, the first defendant has filed I.A.No.399 of 2002 praying the Court not to treat the earlier written statement as part of the records and to discard the written statement filed on 15.6.2001. Liberty was granted to the first defendant to file application to receive the additional written statement. When that being so, the contention urged by the revision petitioner in reference to the averments in the earlier written statement (dated 15.6.2001) has no force. 12. Earlier, the written statement was filed by father-second defendant, which was adopted by the first defendant. The dispute regarding the partnership business is mainly between the brothers. The second defendant-father intervened in the dispute in trying to settle the dispute between his sons. 12. Earlier, the written statement was filed by father-second defendant, which was adopted by the first defendant. The dispute regarding the partnership business is mainly between the brothers. The second defendant-father intervened in the dispute in trying to settle the dispute between his sons. Firstly, the second defendant suggested that the plaintiff may be paid the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000 (Rupees two crores) by the first defendant, so that the plaintiff may retire from the partnership. Later, when the first defendant could not pay the amount and expressed his inability, father-second defendant has suggested the comprtomise that the first defendant could retire and that the plaintiff is to pay Rs.2,00,00,000. In the dispute, thus the role of the second defendant has been very limited. Under the said circumstances, the written statement filed by the second defendant may not be adequate to establish the first defendant’s contention. 13. In the interest of justice, the first defendant has to be afforded sufficient opportunity to file a separate written statement. The contention of the first defendant that the mistake of “adopting written statement/filing the written statement along with his father was only due to oversight”. There is no reason to disbelieve the averments in the affidavit filed by the first defendant. 14. In the compromise, firstly, the first defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,00,000 to the plaintiff for his retirement from partnership. When the first defendant expressed his inability to pay the huge amount, the second defendant father has effected the settlement that the first defendant could retire from the partnership in lieu of which the plaintiff is to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 to the first defendant in full and final settlement. Admittedly, the plaintiff has paid Rs.95,00,000 (Rupees ninety five lakhs only) being part of the amount out of Rs.2,00,00,000 towards dissolution of the partnership firm. In the written statement, it is alleged that the plaintiff has closed the partnership account of “Murugans” and started the business in the name of “New Murugans” at the partnership concerned business premises. “New Murugans” is the sole proprietary concern and the plaintiff’s wife is the sole proprietrix of the said concern. She has also started new accounts and also obtained Sales Tax licence in the name of the new concern in the same business premises. It is alleged that the entire income from the sales is going into the account of “New Murugans”. She has also started new accounts and also obtained Sales Tax licence in the name of the new concern in the same business premises. It is alleged that the entire income from the sales is going into the account of “New Murugans”. In the additional written statement, the first defendant has elaborately set forth his defence in referring to the “New Murugans” and diversion of the funds towards that concern and running of the business by plaintiff’s wife. 15. Further, according to the first defendant, the plaintiff has issued the post-dated cheques for payment of the amount. When those cheques were presented for collection, the cheques dishonoured on reasons-‘payment stopped’, ‘refer to drawer’ respectively. Hence, the first defendant has filed number of private complaints against the plaintiff under Sec.138, N.I.Act, and Sec.420, Crl.P.C., and the cases are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pondicherry. In para.15 of the additional written statement, the first defendant has referred to the filing of the criminal complaints against the plaintiff. Since the first defendant earlier filed the written statement, these defence aspects could not be completely and effectively be pleaded. The additional written statement does not vary nor inconsistent with the pleas filed in the original written statement. The additional written statement only elaborates what has not been properly set forth earlier. 16. Considering the defence set forth and other circumstances, learned subordinate Judge has rightly allowed the application, permitting the first defendant to file additional written statement. 17. Under Sec.115, C.P.C., the revisional jurisdiction shall be exercised only when the lower Court has erroneously exercised the jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction. The order in allowing the first defendant to file additional written statement does not suffer from any such jurisdictional error warranting interference exercising revisional jurisdiction. This revision has no merits and is bound to fail. 18. Therefore, the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the Principal Subordiante Judge, Pondicherry in I.A.No.434 of 2002 in O.S.No.189 of 2001 is confirmed and this civil revision petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the relationship of the parties, there is no order as to costs. The connected C.M.P.No.5752 of 2002 is closed.