Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 31.01.2008 in I.A.No.20 of 2008 in O.S.No.98 of 2003 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C., (praying the Trial Court to receive the subsequent pleading after condoning the delay.) 2. The Trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.20 of 2008 has inter alia observed that already the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement on 12.01.2004, wherein, they have stated in detail about the facts of the matter which they have mentioned in the present I.A.No.20 of 2008 and has resultantly dismissed the application. Moreover, the Trial Court has also observed that by cross examining P.W.1, there is possibility on the side of defendants to explain the averments mentioned in the additional/subsequent written statement. 3. It is to be noted that in regard to the filing of subsequent pleading/additional written statement is concerned, Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. confers wide power to a Court of law to grant leave to file additional written statement and as a matter of fact, it does not prescribe any restriction as to what kind of defence is to be taken by a party. However, a Court of law has to see the subsequent pleading/additional written statement sought to be projected should not be an unnecessary or a frivolous or a redundant one. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 relies on the decision in the case of A. Perumal Raj v. B.Rajendran reported in (2007-2-L.W.938), wherein, this Court inter alia has held that "Even during arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any question of prejudice to the respondent if the additional written statement is allowed to be filed, etc. The learned counsel also relies on the decision in the case of Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another reported in (2007-1-L.W.848), wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has inter alia observed that "Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action". The learned counsel also cites another decision of this Court in the case of Thiyagarajan v. Manivannan reported in (2007-1-L.W 429), wherein this Court observed that "Of course, the discretion is to be exercised on terms considering the facts and circumstances of the individual cases." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the Trial Court order and prays this Court that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper and equitable way and therefore, this Court sitting in revision at this stage need not interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 6. This Court on going through the averments in the written statement filed on 12.01.2004 and the subsequent additional written statement sought to be filed is of the considered view that earlier the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement have mentioned the necessary details and the same are repeated in the proposed subsequent pleading. Therefore, this Court opines that the said application in I.A.No.20 of 2008 is only a redundant, luxury and not a necessity and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.20 of 2008 in O.S.No.98 of 2003 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.