Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 C.P.C against the orders dated 21.03.2003 and 07.04.2003 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Madurai in I.A.Nos.180 and 181 of 2003 in O.S.No.208 of 1986,as stated therein.) The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.208 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai are the Revision Petitioners. O.S.No.208 of 1986 has been filed for removal of encroachment. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 21.03.2003 and 07.04.2003 made in I.A.Nos.180 and 181 of 2003 in O.S.No.208 of 1986 by the Additional District Munsif, Madurai, allowing the Petition for filing Additional Written Statement and Impleading the Parties. 2. O.S.No.208 of 1986:- The Suit Property is a portion of R.S.No.15/1 in Managiri Village, Madurai Corporation Limit. The Family of the Plaintiffs' purchased an extent of 0.39 ½ Cents out of 79 cents in R.S.No.15/1 from Muppadathi alias Karuppanan. Respondents 1 and 2 / Defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the portion of R.S.No.15/1 on the South of the Suit Property from one Ammakudi. The Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of different portions of R.S.No.15/1. The Defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to have encroached into the Northern portion of S.No.15/1. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that the Defendants 1 and 2 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment. Hence, the Suit has been filed for Permanent Injunction and also for Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendants to remove the disputed construction - Two Steps Platform, Drainage and Sunshade etc. 3. The Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the Written Statement contending that the Suit Property is a common pathway and no protest could be made for enjoying the same as the Pathway by having doorways etc. The Defendants 1 and 2 have got the right to use the Suit Property as the Pathway. The underground Drainage is not within the common pathway. The Defendants 1 and 2 have got every right to use the Suit Property as the common pathway and the Plaintiff is not entitled for Permanent Injunction. 4. In the Suit, the Commissioner was also appointed, who has filed the Report in or about 1993. The Trial commenced. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. 5. The Defendants 1 and 2 have got every right to use the Suit Property as the common pathway and the Plaintiff is not entitled for Permanent Injunction. 4. In the Suit, the Commissioner was also appointed, who has filed the Report in or about 1993. The Trial commenced. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. 5. At that stage, I.A.Nos.180 and 181 of 2003 were filed by the Defendants to receive the Additional Written Statement and to implead the Eighth Respondent – Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanam, Madurai as D-8. According to the Defendants, the proposed party - Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as "Devasthanam") is the true owner and the Title of the Suit Property vests with Devasthanam and hence, Devasthanam is a necessary party to the Suit. The Defendants have further alleged that the proposed party – Devasthanam has already filed O.S.No.739 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Court, Madurai. As per the Plaint averments in O.S.No.739 of 1988, the Suit Property belongs to Devasthanam and the Vendor of the Suit Property to the Plaintiffs had no saleable right in the Suit Property. On the above averments, Applications have been filed to receive Additional Written Statement and that "Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanam" is a necessary party to the Suit. 6. The Applications were stoutly resisted by the Plaintiffs contending that Devasthanam is not a necessary party. The properties were owned by Muppadathi alias Karuppanan. The Defence put forth by the Defendants that the Suit Property belongs to Devasthanam is entirely contradictory to the earlier Written Statement wherein the Defendants have only claimed the Suit Property as the common pathway. 7. Upon consideration of the averments in the Affidavit and in the Counter Statement and also in the Additional Written Statement, learned District Munsif allowed both the Applications finding that the Title of the Suit Property vests with Devasthanam and hence, Devasthanam is a necessary party to the Suit. Pointing out that by impleading the proposed party – Devasthanam, no prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiffs, learned District Munsif ordered impleading of Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanam. In view of the order impleading the Devasthanam as the Defendant, the Application in I.A.No.180 of 2003 filed under Order VII Rule 9 C.P.C to receive the Additional Written Statement was also allowed. 8. In view of the order impleading the Devasthanam as the Defendant, the Application in I.A.No.180 of 2003 filed under Order VII Rule 9 C.P.C to receive the Additional Written Statement was also allowed. 8. Aggrieved over the allowing of the Applications, the Plaintiffs have preferred these Revision Petitions. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that when the Plaintiffs Evidence was almost complete, the Application filed belatedly for impleading the Devasthanam and to receive the Additional Written Statement ought not to have been allowed. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Counter Statement filed by the Plaintiffs, learned counsel has submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the detailed Counter Statement and erred in allowing the Application. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1996 (6) S.C.C. 730 , it is further contended that if the Petition for impleading the Party and Additional Written Statement is received, it would amount to denovo Trial and the Plaintiff would be called to fight out a new litigation against the Party, whom he has not chosen to file the case. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision reported in 2003 (4) L.W. 771 . 9. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that when Devasthanam is the true owner, the Devasthanam is a necessary party. It is further submitted that there could be complete and effective adjudication only by impleading Devasthanam and the Court below has rightly ordered impleading of Devasthanam and the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 10. Submitting elaborate arguments, learned counsel for the Eighth Respondent – Devasthanam has contended that when O.S.No.739 of 1988 was decreed, there cannot be any valid objection for impleading the True Owner. Submitting that the Suit Property is an Inam Property given to the Devasthanam for performance of poojas and other purposes, learned counsel for the Eighth Respondent has contended that unless the Devasthanam is added as a party, issues cannot be completely adjudicated upon. Submitting that the Devasthanam is a necessary party, learned counsel for the proposed party has urged that any Decree passed regarding the Suit Property is likely to affect the interest of the Temple. 11. Submitting that the Devasthanam is a necessary party, learned counsel for the proposed party has urged that any Decree passed regarding the Suit Property is likely to affect the interest of the Temple. 11. Upon consideration of the submissions of all the parties, Impugned Orders and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions: - i.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Court was right in allowing the Applications for impleading the Devasthanam and receiving Additional Written Statement? ii.Considering the stage in which the Application was filed, would it not amount to denovo trial and the Plaintiffs being called upon to fight out the litigation against the Devasthanam whom the Plaintiffs have not chosen to implead? iii.Whether the Impugned Order suffers from material irregularity warranting interference? 12. The Suit Property relates to Managiri Village, now Madurai Town Corporation R.S.No.15/1, Northen 39 ½ Cents out of 79 cents, out of this Northern most 3 cents and 126 sq.ft measuring: East West on the North 73 ¼ on the South 55 ½ North South on the East 20 on the West 25 ½ 13. Saraswathi Ammal – Wife of the First Plaintiff and mother of Plaintiffs 2 to 6 has purchased the Suit Property comprised in 39 ½ cents out of 79 cents in R.S.No.15/1 by the Sale Deed dated 27.10.1975 from Poosari Mudaliar, who in turn has purchased from Muppadathi alias Karuppanan. Defendants 1 and 2 are also alleged to have purchased the Southern Portion in R.S.No.15/1 from the said Muppadathi alias Karuppanan. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants 1 and 2 have encroached into the Northern side of the property and put up construction. In the Written Statement filed on 13.12.1987, the Defendants 1 and 2 have raised defence that the Suit Property is a common pathway and that the Defendants 1 and 2 have the right to use the Suit Property as pathway. This Written Statement was filed on 13.12.1987. There is no semblance of allegation denying the Title of the Plaintiff nor stating about the Title of the Devasthanam. The Commissioner has visited the Suit locality to note the alleged encroachment by the Defendants 1 and 2 into the Suit Property. The Commissioner had filed his Report in 1993. The Suit had been pending for about 16 years from 1986. The Commissioner has visited the Suit locality to note the alleged encroachment by the Defendants 1 and 2 into the Suit Property. The Commissioner had filed his Report in 1993. The Suit had been pending for about 16 years from 1986. The Suit was posted in the list on 07.01.2003. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. When the case was posted for further evidence of the Plaintiffs' side, Applications were filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C to receive Additional Written Statement. According to the Defendants, they have been served with the Plaint Copy in O.S.No.739 of 1988, from which they came to know that the Devasthanam is the True Owner of the Suit Property in R.S.No.15/1, Managiri Village. On those allegations, I.A.No.181 of 2003 was filed to implead the Devasthanam as a necessary party to the Suit. If Devasthanam is the true owner, the Defendants ought to have exercised due diligence in seeking to implead Devasthanam immediately after they have been served with the copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.739 of 1988 or atleast after the Commissioner had filed the Report in 1993. The Defendants have not shown due diligence in filing the Applications for impleading and to receive the Additional Written Statement. Only after the Trial has commenced and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined, the Defendants have filed the Applications. Non-filing of the Petition to implead Devasthanam at the early point of time cannot be said to be due to bonafide mistake. 14. As per Order 1 Rule 13 C.P.C, objection as to the non-joinder or misjoinder must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. It is the duty of the party to raise objection in the Written Statement at the earliest point of time about the maintainability of the Suit on the ground of non-impleading of necessary or proper party in determining the issues involved. Order 1 Rule 13 C.P.C reads "Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder:- All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived". 15. 15. Where objection as to the non-joinder was not taken in the Written Statement or at the earliest point of time, it must be held that the Defendants have waived the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties. Presumably, the Defendants must have been served with the copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.739 of 1988 in 1988 or somewhere around that time. But, no steps had been taken for impleading the Devasthanam. Having not taken the plea as to the non-joinder of the necessary party at the earliest point of time, it is not open to Defendants 1 and 2 to file the Application belatedly after the commencement of the Trial. 16. The Lower Court has not considered the belated stage in which the Application was filed and the lack of bonafide. The Application has been allowed simply stating that by impleading the Devasthanam, no prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiffs. This finding is erroneous. The dispute is regarding the alleged encroachment in the Suit Property measuring an extent of 3 cents 126 Sq.ft. The Defendants have not raised any point challenging the Plaintiffs' Title. It may be that the Plaintiffs' Title is challenged by the Devasthanam in some other litigation, but that dispute cannot be made the subject matter of the dispute in O.S.No.208 of 1986. 17. The Plaintiffs are the dominus lit is in the Suit. "For adjudication of real controversy" between the parties on record, if the presence of third party is necessary, then the proposed party can be impleaded. It is always to be remembered that by impleading the proposed party, when irrelevant matters are allowed to be raised, it would cause considerable prejudice to the parties. Adding a new party to the subject matter of the Suit and thereby raising other issues would cause serious prejudice to the Plaintiffs. On behalf of the Devasthanam, it is contended that the Devasthanam being the true owner is a necessary party to the Litigation where the third parties are fighting out the litigation over its property. The test is not that the eventual interest of the proposed party would be affected. But, the test is to see whether the proposed party is a necessary party for the adjudication of "Real controversy between the parties on record in the Suit". 18. Trial has already commenced and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. The test is not that the eventual interest of the proposed party would be affected. But, the test is to see whether the proposed party is a necessary party for the adjudication of "Real controversy between the parties on record in the Suit". 18. Trial has already commenced and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and cross-examined. While so, impleading Devasthanam as a Party to the Suit would result in a denovo trial. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has relied upon the decision reported in ANOKHE LAL ..VS.. RADHAMOHAN BANSAL AND OTHERS ( 1996 (6) S.C.C. 730 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Courts are to be circumspect in dealing with the Application of a third party seeking leave to become a party in the Suit. The Supreme Court has observed, "...Even otherwise, the Court should have been very circumspect in dealing with the application of a third party seeking leave to become party in the Suit, when the Plaintiff, who is the dominus lit is of the suit, is opposed to it. If the consequence of such addition would involve a de novo trial, the Court should normally have disallowed the application. Way back in 1931, the Privy Council did not allow an application for impleadment on the ground that such a course might throw open a de novo trial of the Suit, even after noticing that the party sought to be impleaded was not merely a proper party but a necessary party in the Suit....." 19. The contention of the Devasthanam is that it has obtained a Decree declaring its Title in O.S.No.739 of 1988 that the Devasthanam has also filed O.S.No.839 of 1990 restraining the Defendants thereon from putting up any construction and that Devasthanam being the true owner of the Suit Property is a necessary party to be impleaded in the Suit. This contention has no merits. Even if the proposed party – Devasthanam has any remedy, it has to be worked out in a separate suit. The Devasthanam has already initiated the litigations against the Purchasers, restraining them from putting up construction. It is relevant to note that the Devasthanam itself has not filed the Application to implead itself as a party to the Suit. It is also not explained as to why the objection has not been taken by the Devasthanam at the earliest point of time. It is relevant to note that the Devasthanam itself has not filed the Application to implead itself as a party to the Suit. It is also not explained as to why the objection has not been taken by the Devasthanam at the earliest point of time. While so, it is not open to the Devasthanam to claim to be impleaded in this Suit on the ground that the interest of the Devasthanam would be affected by the result of the litigation. Hence, the Impugned Order made in I.A.No.181 of 2003 ordering impleading "Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanam" cannot be sustained. 20. There is no speaking order in I.A.No.180 of 2003 - allowing the Application to file Additional Written Statement. In the earlier Written Statement filed on 13.12.1987, only a right of common pathway has been put forth as defence. Entirely a new case has been introduced by filing the Additional Written Statement contending that the Devasthanam is the true owner of the Suit Property. The new plea put forth in Additional Written Statement, which is contradictory to the earlier one amounts to putting forth a new case. The Defendants cannot be allowed to file Additional Written Statement, which is likely to cause prejudice to the Plaintiffs. No supplemental Written Statement could be allowed to be filed after the Trial has becun and considerable evidence of Plaintiffs' side has been completed. If the Defendants are allowed to file the Additional Written Statement at this stage, it would completely raise a new point nullifying the earlier trial. Learned counsel for the Respondents / Tenants has relied upon number of decisions, wherein it has been held that Additional Written Statement even if contradictory to the original Written Statement could be received. In genuine cases where Additional Written Statements are filed without inordinate delay, the Applications to receive the Additional Written Statement could be allowed provided it does not introduce a new or inconsistent plea. In the case in hand, the Application in I.A.No.180 of 2003 has been filed after the Trial has begun introducing entirely a new case. Considering the stage when the Application was filed and the nature of the defence put forth, the lower Court ought not to have allowed the Application to receive the Additional Written Statement. That too by a non-speaking order without indicating the reason for allowing the Application. 21. Considering the stage when the Application was filed and the nature of the defence put forth, the lower Court ought not to have allowed the Application to receive the Additional Written Statement. That too by a non-speaking order without indicating the reason for allowing the Application. 21. It is also relevant to note that the Application in I.A.No.180 of 2003 to receive Additional Written Statement is not maintainable in view of C.P.C.Amendment Act 2002. After the C.P.C.Amendment Act 2002, any subsequent pleading is to be filed within the time fixed by the Court (not more than 30 days). After enforcement of C.P.C.Amendment Act 2002 (with effect from 01.07.2002) Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C reads "...No pleading subsequent to the Written Statement of a Defendant other than by way of defence to 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 of not more than thirty days for presenting the same....." The Additional Written Statement filed nearly after 15 years of the earlier Written Statement cannot be allowed to be received. 22. The Trial has already begun. At that stage, the Defendants are not justified in filing the Additional Written Statement putting forth entirely a new case. The Application to implead the proposed party was not taken at the earliest point of time. Under such circumstances, the lower Court erred in allowing the Applications to implead the Devasthanam and to receive the Additional Written Statement filed by the Defendants. The Impugned Orders suffer from serious infirmity and are liable to be set aside. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the orders dated 21.03.2003 and 07.04.2003 of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai in I.A.Nos.180 and 181 of 2003 in O.S.No.208 of 1986 are set aside and both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Learned Additional District Munsif is directed to expedite the Trial in O.S.No.208 of 1986 and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.