Judgment : Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though served. 2. By order dated 30/08/2012 passed by this Court, the parties were put on notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. When the matter was called out on 23/10/2012, respondents did not choose to put in appearance. Hence, the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the respondents to put in appearance. 4. When the matter is called out today, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Hence, Rule. Heard forthwith. 5. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31/07/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2009/A by which respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 has been permitted to file additional written statement. By application dated 21/01/2012, the plaintiffs requested learned trial Court to discard the additional written statement filed by defendant no.3. 6. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the trial Court has allowed respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 to file additional written statement purportedly in terms of Order VIII, Rule 9 of C.P.C. on the ground that the plaintiffs filed affidavit in rejoinder in the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Learned trial Judge further held that defendant no.3 was entitled to file additional written statement with the leave of the Court. 7. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that defendant no.3 had not even sought leave of the Court for filing additional written statement and as such, learned trial Court could not have exercised jurisdiction under Order VIII, Rule 9 of C.P.C. Mr. Bhobe further submits that mere fact that the plaintiffs had filed an affidavit in rejoinder in the application for temporary injunction by itself would not entitle defendant no.3 to file additional written statement. 8. I find merit in both the submissions made by Mr. Bhobe which are not controverted. 9. In view of the above, the application dated 21/01/2012 filed by the plaintiffs for discarding the additional written statement of respondent no.3/defendant no.3, is allowed and the impugned order dated 31/07/2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2009/A granting leave to defendant no.3 to file additional written statement, is quashed and set aside. 10. 9. In view of the above, the application dated 21/01/2012 filed by the plaintiffs for discarding the additional written statement of respondent no.3/defendant no.3, is allowed and the impugned order dated 31/07/2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2009/A granting leave to defendant no.3 to file additional written statement, is quashed and set aside. 10. Needless to mention that this order shall not come in the way of defendant no.3 from taking appropriate steps as may be permitted in law. 11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.