Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 29.10.2011 in I.A. No.2556 of 2011 in A.S. No. 61 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry.The petitioner is the appellant in the above mentioned appeal. The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 271 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.The respondent filed the said suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property and deliver vacant possession thereof and also for award of Rs.10,000/-per month towards damages for illegal use and occupation from 1.3.2005 till delivery of vacant possession and for suit costs. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 2556 of 2011 in the appeal for leave of the Court to file additional written statement. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that even though in the written statement, he has averred that the suit is not maintainable in law, no specific plea was raised that out of the sum of Rs.6500/-, which was agreed to be paid by the petitioner towards rent from 1.3.2004, the component of rent payable was only Rs.3,000/-and that the balance amount represents the amenities etc., and that therefore the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction.The lower appellate Court on a detailed consideration of the facts of the case, held that the petitioner failed to assign convincing reasons for filing the application for amendment of written statement at the stage of appeal.Ordinarily, a party has to raise all his pleadings in the written statement. Order 8 Rule 2 of C.P.C. enjoins on the defendant to raise by his pleading all matters which show the Suit not to be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint. Order 8 Rule 9 bars the parties to raise subsequent pleadings other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim except by the leave of the Court. Order 8 Rule 9 bars the parties to raise subsequent pleadings other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim except by the leave of the Court. While the Courts normally insist that the parties should complete their pleadings in all respects before the trial begins, in cases where sufficient reasons are assigned, the Courts exercise their discretion to grant leave either for amending the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 or filing further pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9. Exercise of discretion for granting leave depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. At the stage of appeals, the appellate Courts also exercise their power to grant leave to amend the pleadings or to raise further pleadings because the appeals are nothing but continuation of suits. Bearing in mind the above settled legal principles, if the facts of the case are examined, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to seek amendment for filing further pleadings by way of additional written statement. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the facts which were in existence at the time of filing written statement were not in his knowledge despite his due diligence. As noted above, in his written statement, the petitioner categorically pleaded that the rent as on the date of filing of the Suit was Rs.6500/-. It is not his case that by subsequent event, the rent was split and restricted to Rs.3,000/-. For the first time in the appeal, at the stage of arguments, the petitioner sought to raise the plea by way of additional written statement in order to non-Suit the respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Such an attempt on the part of the petitioner is undoubtedly a pure after thought placing the respondent in a distinctly disadvantageous position. The inevitable consequence of allowing such amendment would be to reopen the entire evidence either by the appellate Court or to remit the case to the trial Court for recording their evidence on the basis of the new plea that is sought to be raised by the petitioner. The inevitable consequence of allowing such amendment would be to reopen the entire evidence either by the appellate Court or to remit the case to the trial Court for recording their evidence on the basis of the new plea that is sought to be raised by the petitioner. Such a course, if permitted, not only encourages the parties to abuse the process of law, but also will cause serious prejudice to the interests of the respondent as that would deny the respondent of the advantage that was conferred on him by the original pleading of the petitioner. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for filing additional written statement in order to raise a new plea at the appeal stage. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P. No.967 of 2012 is dismissed as infructuous.