JUDGMENT Honble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 43 of 2006 whereby the Court below has rejected the application paper No. 19-Ga filed by the revisionist-defendant for returning the replication to the plaintiff­respondent. 2. The SCC Suit No. 43 of 2006 was filed inter alia for arrears of rent and ejectment and the written statement was filed by the revisionist, whereafter the replication was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The defendant-revisionist filed an application for returning the replication to the plaintiff. The said application has been dismissed. Hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. It was further submitted that in the present case no such leave was granted by the Court below as such the Court has erred in rejecting the application of the revisionist for returning the replication to the plaintiff-respondent. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the revisionist himself admitted that he (revisionist) raised various facts and question of law in his written statement which necessitated the filing of the replication by the plaintiff. It was further submitted that no new facts have ever been raised and replication was filed after taking due permission from the Court below and has not set up any new plea inconsistent with pleading in the plaint. It was submitted that the affidavit in support of the objection filed by the revisionist before the Court below, clinches the issue, wherein it has been stated as follows : "that the learned Court has directed the plaintiff to file an application", thus the application was filed which was necessary and it is wrong to allege that it was uncalled for or unnecessary." 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the replication was filed with the leave of the Court as such it is maintainable. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the replication was filed with the leave of the Court as such it is maintainable. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Before proceeding with the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is useful to reproduce the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 at this juncture which reads as follows : "9. Subsequent Pleadings : no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties cut and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." 8. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite evident that the application can be filed with the leave of the Court. By order dated 9.11.2006 the Court below inter alia passed the following order : Þvkt i=koyh isk gqbZ] Áfroknh ds tckcnkok ds ÁfrmRrj esa oknh dh vksj ls tckcqy tckc ¼fjIyhdsku½ nkf[ky gksdj vknsk gqvk fd kkfey fefly gksAÞ 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the respondent-plaintiff did not file any application seeking leave of the Court for filing the replication, as such it can not be said that the leave was granted within the meaning of Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Lal Kapoor v. IXth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, 1996 (1) ARC 600, wherein it has been held that the replication cannot form a part of the pleadings. 10. The bare perusal of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 does not indicate that the leave of the Court to file a replication ought to be obtained only by a formal application. It can be obtained orally and the order dated 9.11.2006 clearly indicates that the Court below exercised its discretion, permitting the respondent-plaintiff to file replication and the said replication was taken on record. It can be obtained orally and the order dated 9.11.2006 clearly indicates that the Court below exercised its discretion, permitting the respondent-plaintiff to file replication and the said replication was taken on record. The decision in the case of Ramesh Lal Kapoor (supra) does not say that leave of the Court cannot be obtained orally to file a replication. In the present case as noticed above, the Court below exercised its discretion in favour of respondent-plaintiff and the replication filed by the plaintiff-respondent was taken on record. Therefore, the revisionist cannot derive any advantage from the decision in the case of Ramesh Lal Kapoor (supra), since in the present case the replication was filed with the leave of the Court, even though the petitioner did not file any formal application seeking the permission to file replication, the leave of the Court can also be obtained orally. 11. It is clearly within the discretion of a trial Court whether to permit a plaintiff or not to file a replication and the order of the trial Court permitting to grant such a permission is not a matter for interference in the revision. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to demonstrate that either the plea set up by the respondent-plaintiff was inconsistent with the pleadings in plaint or raised a new case in the replication. This apart, the revisionist-defendant himself in the application dated 19.12.2006 had stated inter alia as follows : "The above name defendant Sheo Deen Mishra most humbly and respectfully begs to submit that the learned Court has directed the plaintiff to file replication against the averments of the defendant stated and narrated in the written statement." 13. Thus the revisionist himself in its application had admitted that the Court below had directed the plaintiff to file replication against the averments of the defendant stated in the written statement. Thus the revisionist cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same breath. 14. Learned counsel has also failed to demonstrate that the filing of the replication has caused any prejudice to the revisionist whatsoever. The argument has been spun around thin air. The revisionist has not laid down any valid foundation to his argument and it is difficult to uphold the contention of the revisionist. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Court below. The argument has been spun around thin air. The revisionist has not laid down any valid foundation to his argument and it is difficult to uphold the contention of the revisionist. No fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Court below. The Court below has assigned cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons to allow the amendment application of the plaintiff. Argument of the revisionist has no substance and is wholly untenable and erroneous. 15. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. 16. In view of the above discussion, the present revision is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expected that the Court below will proceed with the matter expeditiously. ————