Judgment : The defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 552 of 2004 are the revision petitioners-before this Court. 2. The suit in O.S.No. 52 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the common well, electric motor and, the service connection situated in the suit schedule property. Written statement has been filed and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.849 of 2007 was filed by the defendant seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The trial court by order dated 1. 2008 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance through counsel as Caveator. 4. I have heard the learned-counsel-appearing for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 5 submits; that in the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction, written statements were already filed by the defendants refuting all the allegations. While so, the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.849 of 2007 seeking permission to file an additional written statement for the purpose of clarifying the ownership of the well, the motor and the service connection. But, the trial Court on misconception of facts and law dismissed the application. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court failed to see the defendants 4 and 5 were impleaded only recently and as such filing of additional written statement would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that after having admitted the right of the respondent/plaintiff over the subject Weil in the written statement and stated that they would not object to the plaintiff for making use of the Well now or in the future, it is not possible for the defendants to file an additional written statement questioning the ownership and the right of the respondent/plaintiff especially when the suit is posted for cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application which does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Construction of India. 7. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. A perusal of the written statement filed as early as 2005, would show that the petitioners/defendants categorically admitted the ownership of the subject Well of the petitioner/plaintiff and they would not disturb the plaintiff from making use of the Well now or in future. Now, they wanted to file an additional written statement stating that the plaintiff has no right at all in the subject matter, that too after the trial has commenced and the suit is posted for cross examination of P.W.1. Though such application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. ought to be considered liberally in the present case, the revision petitioners wanted to take away the right accrued to the respondent already by pleading a mutually destructive plea, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered the application which does not warrant interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.O. No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 9. Since the suit is of the year 2004, I direct the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peramathi Vellore, namakkal District to dispose of the suit in O.S.No. 552 of 2004 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.