Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.694/2004 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tirupur. 2. The suit has been filed for cancellation of the document dated 111. 1996 registered as document No.2768 of 1996 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Tirupur and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The 4th defendant in the said suit filed his written statement, which was adopted by defendants 1 to 3. 4. After much delay, the defendants filed the application in I.A.No.53/2007 under Section 151 C.P.C., to receive the additional written statement along with counter claim. The reasons stated in that application are that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, additional written statement with counter claim is necessary. The said application was opposed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff by filing a counter stating that the allegations are already available in the original written statement and that the application to receive additional written statement came to filed more belatedly without setting any reasons. The lower Court on a consideration of averments in the petition and the counter has allowed the said application on the ground that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision. 5. Heard Mr. S.K. Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Even though notices were served on the respondents and their names appeared in the cause list they have not chosen to enter appearance and hence this Court has proceeded with the case on merits. The affidavit filed in support of the application to file written statement along with counter claim does not disclose any particulars. Moreover, the reasons for such long delay in filing the additional written statement have also not been stated in the affidavit. By permitting the respondents/defendants to file additional written statement along with counter claim it would amount to prolonging of trial, complicating otherwise the smooth flow of the proceedings. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 1997 and after much delay, the abovesaid application came to be filed without disclosing the reasons for delay. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are vague. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 1997 and after much delay, the abovesaid application came to be filed without disclosing the reasons for delay. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are vague. The reasons given by the trial Court that no prejudice would be caused in the event of allowing the application to file additional written statement along with the counter claim are unsustainable and it is not in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6(A) of Civil Procedure Code. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26. 2007 made I.A.No.53/2007 in O.S.No.694/2004 is set aside. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2007 is disposed of.