Judgment :- 1. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner herein, who filed O.S. No.3962/2006 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for declaration, declaring that the temporary suspension of the membership of the Plaintiff in CSI Yesu Anbar Alayam, Adyar, Chennai-20 passed by the Respondent herein is invalid. 2. In the said Suit, the Respondent herein had adopted the counter filed by the 5th Defendant and later, the Respondent herein filed I.A. No.18910/2006, seeking permission to file an Additional Written Statement, which was allowed by order dated 211. 2006, which is challenged in this Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent is an highly educated person, managing several properties worth about several crores and he consciously adopted the counter filed by the 5th Defendant and hence, it is not open to him at a later stage to seek permission to file a separate Additional Written Statement after lapse of several months and that the Court below, without considering the said fact, had erroneously allowed the said I.A. and prayed for quashing of the same. 4. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material records placed. 5. Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C. contemplates 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 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 said Rule, which was omitted by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act. 1999 (46 of 1999), has been restored by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) in the same form verbatim except for the addition of the words "of not more than thirty days" after the words "and fix a time" and before the words "for presenting the same" appearing at the end of the Rule. The effect of the change is that the Court shall fix time for presenting the same, which shall be not more than thirty days. 6. The effect of the change is that the Court shall fix time for presenting the same, which shall be not more than thirty days. 6. On a careful perusal of the said Rule, it is seen that ample powers are given to the Court below to grant leave upon such terms, as it thinks fit. In the case on hand, both the Respondents 1 and 2 are one and the same person, who is arrayed by the Petitioner herein as one in the official capacity and another in his individual capacity. The Respondent herein originally adopted the counter filed by the 5th Respondent and later, after coming to know about the allegations made in the Plaint personally against him, he felt that it is absolutely necessary to file an Additional Written Statement to meet the allegations made by the Petitioner. Considering the above said valid reasons, the Court below has rightly granted permission as sought for by the Respondent. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the said reasons assigned by the Court below are perfectly valid. Further, this Court also does not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Court below, warranting interference by this Court. 8. Further, it is also necessary to mention that the said I.A. was disposed of by the Court below as early as 211. 2006, but the Petitioner has chosen to challenge the same after lapse of about one year. Hence, on that ground also, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.