Judgment :- The civil revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have projected the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 17.06.2008 in I.A.No.257 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sankari in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants under Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to receive the additional written statement. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.257 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the suit has been filed in the year 2004 and that the amendment to Hindu Succession Act will not apply to the revision petitioners and has resultantly dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the interlocutory application is not correct in the eye of law, since the trial Court has gone into the merits and demerits of the amendment application at the time of passing orders and further that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that female members are also entitled to equal shares as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and by allowing the amendment application, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff and this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the trial Court and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in the interest of justice. 4. It is to be noted that an additional written statement ought not to approach totally a new case in variance to the original written statement filed so as to completely and comprehensively change the issue in the case. As per the second part of the Order VIII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code the Court is at any time may require a written statement or additional written statement to be filed. However, the second part of the rule does not confer any right on a party to file written statement or additional written statement but they can do so only on being required by the Court so to do. Admittedly, the ingredients of Order VIII Rule 9 are not mandatory. As a matter of fact, Order VIII Rule 9 enables the Court to exercise its judicial discretion permitting the defendant/defendants to file the written statement within a span of 30 days for reasons to be recorded in writing. 5. Admittedly, the ingredients of Order VIII Rule 9 are not mandatory. As a matter of fact, Order VIII Rule 9 enables the Court to exercise its judicial discretion permitting the defendant/defendants to file the written statement within a span of 30 days for reasons to be recorded in writing. 5. As far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioners/defendants in I.A.No.257 of 2008 are claiming equal shares in the family properties by virtue of an amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and therefore, they make a claim of common ¼th shares each in the family properties and to that effect they seek the leave of the Court and file additional written statement. It is an axiomatic fact that it is within the power of the Court to allow a party to file the additional written statement. 6. On going through the orders of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.257 of 2008, it transpires that the trial Court has relied on the decision in Angammal and another V. C. Sellamuthu and another (2008) 1 MLJ 560 ) wherein this Court has observed that there is no question of enlargement of their status and amendment cannot be ordered and dismissed the revision petition. 7. Inasmuch as the prayer of the revision petitioners in the interlocutory application is only to a limited extent of claiming common ¼th shares each in the family properties, this Court is of the considered view at the time of dealing with the amendment application, the trial Court ought not to have been considered the merits and demerits of the case and could have exercised its discretion in allowing the interlocutory application to receive the additional written statement but such a course has not been resorted to by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court sitting in revision exercising its judicial discretion allows the civil revision petition and set aside the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.257 of 2008 in the interest of justice. 8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.257 of 2008 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to receive the additional written statement. 8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.257 of 2008 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to receive the additional written statement. It appears that before the trial Court though P.W.1 has been examined in part and hence, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the main case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. A direction is also given to the trial Court to frame a necessary issue after receiving the additional written statement as to whether the revision petitioners/ defendants are entitled to claim common 1/4th shares each in the family properties by virtue of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and in this regard, the trial Court is also directed to provide opportunities to both parties to let in oral and documentary evidence and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit so that the controversies in the suit can be given a quietus once for all in the interest of parties concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.