Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 27/2004, who is respondent in I.A. No. 630/2005, is the revision petitioner herein. I.A. No. 630/2005 in O.S. No. 27/2004 was filed under Order 8, Rule 9 and 151 of the C.P.C. by the defendant in the Suit seeking permission after filing additional written statement on the ground that only after filing of Ex.A-9, the defendant came to know that the properties agreed to be sold are the properties of the individual and not the property of the plaintiff-firm. A counter was filed by the respondent and after hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has allowed the Petition, permitting the defendant to file additional written statement in the Suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred this Revision Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the plaintiffs evidence is closed and at that stage, the respondent herein is trying to file two additional written statements in the Suit. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in Chandra and two others v. Ranganathan, 2005 (4) LW 482 and contended that defendant is not justified in filing the Application under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. to file written statement. A reading of the facts of the case cited will go to show that the defendant had filed the Petition under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C. with a prayer to put forth a new set of facts by way of additional Written statement, which was considered by this Court as an attempt to divert process of trial. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decision Sir Srinivasmurthy Mandiram v. Gnanasoundari, AIR 2004 Mad. 518 , wherein it has been held by this Court that even the defendant can be allowed to take inconsistent plea and which plea he relies on or on which defence, he could succeed, are all materials to be decided at time of the trial and an additional written statement cannot be described as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. 518 , wherein it has been held by this Court that even the defendant can be allowed to take inconsistent plea and which plea he relies on or on which defence, he could succeed, are all materials to be decided at time of the trial and an additional written statement cannot be described as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Order 8, Rule 9, runs as follows: "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." 4. Admittedly in this case also the defendant has raised a counter claim The Suit is for specific performance of contract. New plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has no right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property since the suit property belongs to individual and not to the plaintiff firm Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity rust be given to the defendant to raise the above said plea by way of an additional written statement. Since the defendant has filed the Application at a belated stage, I am of the view that it should be compensated by way of cost of Rs.1,000. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order passed in I.A. No. 630/2005 in O.S. No. 27 of 2004 dated 25.10.2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC. No. I), Erode, with a modification that the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) to the plaintiff on or before 15.9.2006, failing which the order passed in I.A. No. 630/2005 shall stand dismissed. On filing of Additional Written Statement by the defendant, the Trial Court must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to file his reply statement. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.