ORDER : A.K. Rath, J. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to laciniate the order dated 3.7.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Titilagarh in T.S. No.63 of 2000. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and accepted the pleadings subsequent to the filing of the written statement. 2. The opposite party as the plaintiff instituted T.S. No.63 of 2000 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Titilagarh impleading the petitioner as defendant for permanent injunction. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application to accept the further pleadings. The defendant filed objection to the same. Relying the provision of Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C., learned trial court held that since certain averments have been made in the written statement, the plaintiff is required to give reply to the same. Having held so, learned trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and accepted the further pleadings. 3. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party in spite of valid service of notice. 4. The sole question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether the plaintiff can file additional plaint subsequent filing of the written statement without making any application for amendment. 5. Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C., which is the hub of the issue, reads thus:- "9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading 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 and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." 6. On a bare perusal of the said Rule, it is vivid and luminescent that the defendant can file the written statement by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim with leave of the Court after the written statement is filed. On a bare perusal of the said Rule, it is vivid and luminescent that the defendant can file the written statement by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim with leave of the Court after the written statement is filed. Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. prohibits any pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant being filed other than by way of defence to a set-off or counterclaim except by the leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit. The plaintiff can file an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint. Till and until the application for amendment of the plaint is allowed by the Court, the Court cannot permit the plaintiff to file additional pleadings. The procedure adopted by the court below is foreign to law. 7. In the wake of the aforesaid, the order dated 3.7.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Titilagarh in T.S. No.63 of 2000 is quashed. The petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.