Judgment :- Heard the counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 2. The facts as are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is arrayed as the second defendant in a pending civil suit. The first respondent is the plaintiff who has filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. His father is the second respondent, his wife and step mother who are the third and fourth respondents, respectively, are co-defendants. 3. The present petitioner had adopted the written statement filed by his father wherein it was contended that the agreement of sale, of which specific performance was sought, is a got up document and that the defendants had never executed such an agreement. While admitting that another agreement dated 13.12.2001 though executed was in favour of the plaintiff was only to sell 6½ acres of land on the northern side of Sy. No.55 of Lalithadripura, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District and therefore the agreement in respect of which specific performance was sought was a concocted document and hence the suit be dismissed. 4. The written statement is dated 18.11.2004. The petitioner herein had thereafter filed an application on 24.3.2008 seeking to file an additional written statement. It was contended that in view of certain subsequent events, it was necessary to file an additional written statement to refute the claim of the first respondent – plaintiff and further emphasizing that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the written statement filed by the first defendant and it was stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Madaiah and he had willed the suit schedule property to the first defendant – second respondent herein, with life interest in the said property and that the Will further declared that it is only after the death of the second respondent, who is the father of the petitioner, that the property would devolve on the petitioner and others and this fact was not known to the petitioner. It is only upon receiving the suit summons in another civil suit in OS No. 900 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge [Sr. It is only upon receiving the suit summons in another civil suit in OS No. 900 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge [Sr. Dvn.,] at Mysore, wherein the petitioner is the second defendant, that the Will said to have been executed by the above named Madaiah was made known by the father – second respondent herein and that he was under the mistaken belief that after the demise of Madaiah, the property had devolved absolutely upon the father of the petitioner and himself. It is on this plea that the additional written statement was sought to be filed to urge this additional defence. 5. The trial court having rejected the application, the petitioner is before this court. 6. The trial court has by a detailed order, rejected the application. It is now contended by the counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the tenor of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [hereinafter referred to as CPC for brevity] there is no impediment in allowing such additional defence which is filed only in order to amplify the defence that is already taken and the same would not be inconsistent with the written statement already filed. The petitioner only seeks to place the true and correct facts before the court and therefore the petitioner being denied this right would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner and reliance is placed on the following authorities. 7. ‘S Sridevi Vs. S Vijay And Another’ 1989 [1] KLJ 100, this is a case wherein this court sitting in revision had held that in a case where the first defendant had not filed a written statement in a suit for partition and separate possession but had adopted the written statement filed by another and the written statement filed by that defendant had taken the stand that the plaintiff had no right of any kind in the suit schedule property, much less one-third share, and if that is adopted by the first defendant and had later sought to file additional written statement to the effect that in the event the suit is decreed the first defendant should also be declared her share and put in separate possession of her share. But, the question was whether such a plea could be permitted by way of additional written statement. But, the question was whether such a plea could be permitted by way of additional written statement. This court has held that under Rule 9 of Order VIII of CPC that there is ample power to permit or not to permit an additional written statement. It should not be denied for the sake of mere denial. It should be allowed if there is no prejudice likely to be caused to the plaintiff or any of the parties. Accordingly, it allowed the petition and permitted the filing of the additional written statement. 8. The counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of ‘Kem Muhammad Ibrahim Maricar And Others Vs. O.S.M. Ahmed Maricar’ AIR 1949 MADRAS 541, which was a case where permission to file an additional written statement, raising inconsistent pleas, was sought to be filed and the court held that such a plea if it does not result in any embarrassment of the trial, permission ought to be granted. 9. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of ‘Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram Vs Mrs. Gnanasoundari’ AIR 2004 MADRAS 518, in which the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the defendants were trespassers. The first defendant had filed the suit more or less admitting the title of the plaintiff but claiming leasehold rights over the site. After filing of the written statement, the first defendant had sought to file an additional written statement and the same was allowed. The plaintiff had not questioned that order passed by the trial court. Thereafter, he had filed a revision petition to strike out the averments in the additional written statement. The application was rejected. This was challenged before the High Court. The High Court on an interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC held that the defence is just inconsistent with the original defence and need not be struck out. 10. The application was rejected. This was challenged before the High Court. The High Court on an interpretation of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC held that the defence is just inconsistent with the original defence and need not be struck out. 10. The counsel for the petitioner in the present case would take this court through the pleadings of the parties to demonstrate that there is no inconsistency which is of such a nature as would disentitle the filing of such additional written statement and even if there is an inconsistency, the burden is on the petitioner to establish or fail to establish at the trial as to his pleas and therefore the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application. 11. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would contend that there is inconsistency between the original plea that there was an agreement executed by the petitioner and his father along with others in respect of 6½ acres of land in favour of the first respondent, but having denied that there was an agreement of which specific performance was being sought, thereafter to take up a plea that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the property was the subject matter of a Will and that his father only had a limited life interest and till such time that his father was no more, the petitioner would not get a right in the property is certainly inconsistent with the plea that they were indeed acting as the absolute owners. Hence, the premise that there is no inconsistency cannot be accepted. 12. Insofar as the legal position is concerned, he would point out that under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC, an inconsistent plea is barred. Hence, the petitioner having chosen to adopt the written statement filed by the second respondent herein, the question of being permitted to raise a pleading, not by way of amendment but by way of an additional written statement is clearly barred. He would then draw attention to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC itself to demonstrate that it does not contemplate any pleadings being filed subsequent to the written statement and it is only the court which is afforded the power to call for any additional written statement. 13. He would then draw attention to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC itself to demonstrate that it does not contemplate any pleadings being filed subsequent to the written statement and it is only the court which is afforded the power to call for any additional written statement. 13. It was however open for the petitioner to have sought for amendment of pleadings as laid down by this court in the case of ‘Mohammed Ali And Another Vs. Smt. Khutejatul Kubra And Others’ ILR 2001 KAR 4580 wherein there was a suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants had filed their written statement contesting the claim. They had taken the contention that the sale in favour of the plaintiffs by the first defendant was not valid and legal and it does not bind the other defendants. Secondly they claimed a pre-emptive right to purchase one-fourth share from the first defendant and when the plaintiffs purchased the one-fourth share in contravention of the pre-emptive right, no title passed to them. Further, the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiffs is collusive and a sham transaction and that title did not pass. The trial court had framed issues on those pleadings and thereafter an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC was filed seeking permission to file an additional written statement. In the additional written statement, it was sought to be contended that the plaintiffs are benamidars of their husbands and therefore the sale deeds under which the plaintiffs claimed titled do not confer title and in the absence of the respective husbands being made parties to the suit the suit was not maintainable. This application having been rejected, the defendants were before this court. After considering the case law on the point as laid down in the case of ‘Arundhati Mishra Vs. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey’ 1994 [2] SCC 29 And ‘S Sridevi Vs. S Vijay And Another’ 1989 [1] KLJ 100, which is also referred to by the petitioner herein, this court held while referring to order VI Rule 7 of CPC that if a party wants to plead a new ground of claim or statement contending allegation of fact, inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the parties, pleading the same shall be raised by way of amendment only. There is a total prohibition for pleading new claims and inconsistent statements by any other mode except by way of amendment to the existing written statement. Though subsequent pleadings are permitted under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, the same cannot be made use for raising pleas which are altogether new and inconsistent with the original pleadings in the written statement. Order VI Rule 7 of CPC deals with a departure from the previous pleadings, Order VI Rule 17 of CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. When these provisions are read together, the distinction becomes apparent. Thus it is clear by way of subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC new claims and inconsistent pleas cannot be raised and for raising such pleas one has to resort to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 14. On the above contentions, the plea sought to be raised by way of additional written statement is certainly inconsistent with the pleadings in the written statement filed by the second respondent herein, on the face of it. The question is whether such a plea could be permitted under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. I am fully inclined to adopt the view of this court in MOHAMMED ALI’s case referred to [supra] which would prohibit any inconsistent pleas being taken in terms of Order VI rule 7 of CPC it is only by way of amendment that any such plea could be incorporated. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the written statement that could be amended was not even filed by him. The written statement was filed by his father – second respondent and he had merely adopted the same. Hence, the question whether such an amendment could be made in the written statement of another defendant by the petitioner is a further question which would arise for consideration. Even otherwise, the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC ought to have been filed at a stage before the parties going to trial. 15. Hence, the question whether such an amendment could be made in the written statement of another defendant by the petitioner is a further question which would arise for consideration. Even otherwise, the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC ought to have been filed at a stage before the parties going to trial. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioner had filed an application seeking to file additional written statement at a stage when the evidence had commenced and the trial having proceeded notwithstanding the presentation of this petition has reached the stage of final arguments and the plaintiff has even addressed arguments and it is now set down for the defendants’ arguments. At this stage, even to consider whether any additional written statement can be brought on record is not permissible. In any event, the pleas being inconsistent cannot be permitted by way of additional written statement in view of the law as laid down in MOHAMMED ALI’s case, as already stated. 16. Therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petition and is hereby dismissed.