ORDER : The petitioner feels aggrieved of order dated 20.06.2012 passed in Title Suit No.276 of 2007 by which his application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC has been rejected. 2. On a bare reading of the aforesaid application dated 29.01.2010, I come to a conclusion that the petitioner has no reason to feel aggrieved by rejection of that application. 3. The provision under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, is not a provision under the Code for filing written statement by the defendant, except where a counter-claim or a claim for set-off has been raised in the suit. Order VIII Rule 9 CPC reads as under : “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 presented the same.” 4. Order VI CPC deals with pleadings generally. It provides forms of pleading, particulars and further or better statement to be given where necessary, verification of pleadings, striking out pleadings, amendment of pleadings etc. Order VI Rule 1 CPC clarifies that plaint and written statement shall constitute “pleadings in the suit”. Order VII deals with plaint and Order VIII deals with written statement. It is in this context that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC provides that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant shall be presented. Exception to this restriction has, however, been carved out in this rule itself. It provides that when a set-off or a counter-claim has been raised by the defendant in his written statement, the plaintiff may be permitted to file a written statement or additional written statement, however, not without leave of the Court and only upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. Order VIII Rule 6 provides that when a defendant claims set-off against the plaintiff’s demand, he may at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court, present a written statement containing particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. Order VIII Rule 6 provides that when a defendant claims set-off against the plaintiff’s demand, he may at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court, present a written statement containing particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. Sub-rule 2 to Rule 6 provides that the written statement now shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit and sub-rule 3 provides that the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant apply to a written statement in answer to a claim of set-off. Order VIII Rule 6 A deals with counter-claim. It provides that a defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for submitting his defence has expired. A similar procedure follows when a counter-claim is raised by the defendant as in the case of a claim of set-off. 5. In the context of the aforesaid procedures prescribed under Rule 6 and Rule 6-A to Order VIII CPC if the expression “except by the leave of Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit” as occurring in Rule 9 is construed, it becomes clear that subsequent pleadings as envisaged under Rule 9 must remain confined to filing of written statement or additional written statement in cases where the defendant has claimed a set-off or raised a counter-claim in his written statement. Powers of the Court under Rule 9 to permit subsequent pleadings cannot be exercised to permit a party to file his written statement which he has failed to file within the statutory period as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and, resultantly, debarred from filing the written statement. 6. Mr. Shailesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the second part of Rule 9 which gives powers to the court to pass an order in the interest of justice. This contention is misconceived. 6. Mr. Shailesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the second part of Rule 9 which gives powers to the court to pass an order in the interest of justice. This contention is misconceived. The second part of Rule 9 simply provides an opportunity to the plaintiff to file written statement or additional written statement in cases where the defendant has claimed set-off or raised a counter-claim. 7. The application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC filed by the defendant for permission of the court to accept the written statement was apparently misconceived. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 20.06.2012 that a prayer was made by the defendant to accept his objection/reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as his written statement of defence. By now it is a well-accepted practice that even if a defendant has failed to file his written statement stand taken by him in opposition to the application for injunction shall be treated as his defence in the suit [refer “Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal & Anr. Vs. Chandrakant N. Patel & Ors.” in Writ Petition No.1058 of 2010 of BombayHighCourt]. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Judge in the impugned order dated 20.06.2012. 8. Viewed thus, and in view of the fact that the petitioner has made a prayer for treating his reply to the application for injunction as his written statement of defence in the suit, while finding no infirmity with that part of the impugned order dated 20.06.2012 by which his application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC has been rejected, the trial court shall permit the defendant to lead evidence on his stand taken in his reply to the application for injunction. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid direction. Petition disposed of.