Judgment :- The revision petitioner/second defendant has preferred this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 18. 2008 in I.A.No.22 of 2008 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore in dismissing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC to receive the additional written statement along with the sale deed executed by the revision petitioner/second defendant to one Thirumurugan Asari. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.22 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the sale by the second defendant is hit by lis pendens by automatic operation of law, this Court feels that the non-reception of additional written statement will not cause any prejudice or hardship to the petitioner and resultantly dismissed the the application without costs. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner /second defendant contends that after the disposal of the injunction application, the revision petitioner/second defendant has sold his share of about 0.60 ¼ cent land in first item of plaint properties on 13. 2007 in favour of Thirumurugan Asari for consideration of Rs.90,000/- and handed over the possession of the property and that the said Thirumurugan Asari is now in possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore he is necessary party to the suit. It is also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that if the revision petitioner/second defendant is not added as a party to the suit, then it will not enable the plaintiff to proceed with the conduct of the suit. 4. Inasmuch as the relief sought for by the revision petitioner/second defendant is only to a limited extent of bringing to the notice of the Court and the plaintiff in regard to the sale of share of about 0.60 ¼ cent land in first item of plaint properties on 13. 2007 by the revision petitioner/second defendant in favour of Thirumurugan Asari for valuable consideration of Rs.90,000/-, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.22 of 2008 dismissing the same is not correct in the eye of law and in that view of the matter allows the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 5. 5. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.22 of 2008 in O.S.No.639 of 2006 by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore is set aside for the reasons assigned by Court in this revision. The trial Court is directed to receive the additional written statement filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant and to proceed with further in the suit in the manner known to law. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.