Judgment The plaintiffs are the petitioners. They are aggrieved against the order of the trial Court in rejecting their application filed under Order VII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file the reply statement. The respondents are the defendants. 2. The petitioners filed the said suit for partition. It is their contention that they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Their claim was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. Thereafter, the present application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission of the Court to file reply statement. The trial Court rejected the application only on the reason that the reply statement sought to be filed by them contradicts the earlier stand taken by them in the original plaint. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 11 and 12 and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. It is seen that the main grievance of the respondents/defendants before the trial Court in opposing the above application is that the plaintiffs having chosen to contend at Paragraph No.11 of the plaint that their father Maruthakutty Gounder was entitled to 1/4th share in all the suit properties and that the plaintiffs claim that share jointly for themselves, they cannot be subsequently permitted to file a reply statement with a plea that the plaintiffs have right to the property independently of Maruthakutty Gounder and they are not claiming any right through the said person. Therefore, the above pleadings are said to be mutually destructive. The Court also accepted the said contention and rejected the application. 5. In my considered view, the above pleas raised by the plaintiffs in the original plaint as well as the reply statement sought to be filed, do not appear to be destructive of each other and on the other hand, their claim over the suit property seeking for 1/4th share stands as it is. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiffs have, at paragraph 9 of the original plaint, stated that they claim 1/4th share jointly for themselves. Having said so in the plaint, they further stated at paragraph 7 of the reply statement sought to be filed that their right to the property is independent of Maruthakutty Gounder's right. Having said so in the plaint, they further stated at paragraph 7 of the reply statement sought to be filed that their right to the property is independent of Maruthakutty Gounder's right. In my considered view, the plea raised by the petitioners both in the original plaint as well as the reply statement sought to be filed are certainly a matter for trial and they, being the plaintiffs, have to establish their case by adducing evidence in support of their case. 6. When this Court finds that the pleas are not destructing each other and on the other hand, their claim over the suit property to an extent of 1/4th share still remains, the trial Court has to consider as to whether such claim based on those pleadings is sustainable or not. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs are seeking to file the reply statement only in pursuant to the written statement filed by the defendants. For completion of the pleadings, it is proper to allow the plaintiffs to file their reply statement so that the lis between the parties can be comprehensively considered and decided. A recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratima Chowdhury Vs. Kalpana Mukherjee and Another reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 196 while dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 9 CPC, can be safely relied on at this juncture, where at paragraph 33 the Apex Court has held as follows: “Pleadings between the parties could be considered as complete only after the appellant was permitted to file a rejoinder (in case she desired to do so). She actually filed a rejoinder which was taken on record by the arbitator. Both parties were permitted to lead evidence, not only on the factual position emerging from the complaint filed by the appellant and the written replies filed in response thereto by the respondents but also, the factual position highlighted by the appellant in her rejoinder-affidavit.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in Sivagnanamoorthy Vs. Both parties were permitted to lead evidence, not only on the factual position emerging from the complaint filed by the appellant and the written replies filed in response thereto by the respondents but also, the factual position highlighted by the appellant in her rejoinder-affidavit.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in Sivagnanamoorthy Vs. M.Shanmugam reported in 2003 (3) CTC 705 , which is actually relied on by the trial Court to reject the application, where the learned single Judge of this Court has found that destructive plea would amount to permitting the defendant to withdraw the averments made by him in the written statement and therefore, the Court cannot permit such plea to be raised. Needless to say that whether a plea is a destructive plea or not is to be considered and decided taking note of the facts and circumstances of the individual case. As I have already pointed out that the plea is not destructive, I find that the above decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is not factually applicable to this case. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Civil Revision Petition. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed in I.A.No.928 of 2003 is set aside. Since the suit is of the year 1996, the trial Court is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.