JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 25.01.2005 passed by the learned M.A.C.T.–cum-Additional District Judge, VIII, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.124 of 1995 whereby and where under the learned tribunal has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay in total a sum of Rs.2,33,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. 3. The brief facts of this case is that on 13.08.1995 at about 11:30 pm while the deceased- Jai Bisai who was the husband and father of the claimant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, after watching movie at Govindpur was going to village Baghsuma on foot, on the way near village Fakirdih, the truck bearing No. BR- 20B-9516 came from behind and ran over the deceased Jai Bisai. The bus fell down in a ditch by the side of the G.T. Road and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. In connection with the accident, Govindpur P.S. Case No.147 of 1995 under Sections 279/304 A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. The defendant No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the defendant No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle. The defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted the ownership of the offending vehicle but denied the factum of the accident and pleaded that the vehicle was insured by defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 filed its separate written statement. In paragraph-7 of the written statement it is specifically admitted by the defendant No.2 that the offending vehicle was insured with the defendant No.2 under policy particular detailed in column 15 of the claim. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal below framed several issues but for this appeal the only issue relevant is the issue No. V which is as follows:- V. Whether the defendant No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs/claimants examined three witnesses and also proved the following documents:- (a) Ext.-1:- F.I.R. of G.R. Case No.2923 of 1995. (b) Ext.-2:- Charge sheet of G.R. Case No.2923 of 1995. (c) Ext.-3:- Copy of post mortem report. (d) Ext.-4:- Identity Card issued by Sri Gopal Coke Industries in the name of Jai Bisai. 7. One witness each was also examined on behalf of each set of the defendants. (b) Ext.-2:- Charge sheet of G.R. Case No.2923 of 1995. (c) Ext.-3:- Copy of post mortem report. (d) Ext.-4:- Identity Card issued by Sri Gopal Coke Industries in the name of Jai Bisai. 7. One witness each was also examined on behalf of each set of the defendants. The defendants also proved the signature of the surveyor over the survey report which was marked as Ext. A. 8. The learned tribunal considered the fact that defendant No.2 has filed two written statements. First written statement was filed on 08.02.1996 and another supplementary written statement was filed on 14.06.2002. After considering the fact that law permits to file only one written statement by the defendant in a suit and an additional written statement can be filed only with the leave of the court but as no leave was ever obtained by the court, the tribunal did not consider the document filed as supplementary written statement dated 14.06.2002 to be a written statement or to be a part of it and considered the fact that in para-7 of the written statement of the defendant No.2 filed on 08.02.1996 the defendant No.2 has categorically admitted that the offending vehicle in question was insured with the defendant No.2 and did not consider the evidence of the insurance company that the insurance policy is not valid as there was no valid pleading in the record to that effect and held that the defendant No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and is liable to indemnify the defendant No.1 being the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in respect of the compensation which was assessed to be Rs.2,33,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 9. Mr. D. C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal erred by holding that the defendant No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, while deciding the inter say liability between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1- the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted by Mr. 9. Mr. D. C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal erred by holding that the defendant No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, while deciding the inter say liability between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1- the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant that there was no absolute or unconditional admission by the defendant No.2 that the offending vehicle was insured by the defendant No.2 insurance company rather the said admission was a conditional one and as the owner of the vehicle has failed to prove that particular condition of producing and proving the original cover note of the policy, hence, the learned tribunal erred in saddling the defendant No.2 with the liability of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle in respect of the compensation awarded. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the learned tribunal erred by not considering the fact that subsequently upon detection of the policy particulars to be false and fabricated and the vehicle was not insured at any point of time by the defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 mentioned the same in the supplementary written statement. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside to the extent by which the appellant insurance company has been saddled with the liability to indemnify the defendant No.1 the owner in respect of the claim amount and to pay the claim amount. 10. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submitted that as there is categorical admission by the appellant-insurance company that the offending vehicle was insured by it and it being a settled principle of law that the facts admitted need not be proved, hence, none of the parties to the proceeding were under any obligation to prove the admitted case of the defendant No.2-insurance company that the offending vehicle was insured with the defendant No.2-insurance company. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 drew the attention of this Court towards Rule 9 Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:- Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure:- 9. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 drew the attention of this Court towards Rule 9 Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:- Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure:- 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.”] It is further submitted by Mr. Birendra Kumar that as no leave of the court has been taken by the defendant No.2-appellant for filing any pleadings subsequent to their written statement dated 08.02.1996. Hence, the learned tribunal has rightly not considered any subsequent pleading filed by way of supplementary written statement by the defendant no.2 more so because the same does not contain the essential particulars regarding the alleged fraud in obtaining the insurance policy. Hence, it is submitted that the learned tribunal having rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, the only point to be determined in this appeal is- ‘whether the learned tribunal was proper in holding that the defendant No.2-insurance company was the insurer of the offending vehicle?’ 12. By adverting to the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that when facts stated in the plaint is not denied by the defendant, evidence in support of such facts by the plaintiff is not necessary. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ragavendra Kumar versus Firm Prem Machinery & Co. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 679 in paragraph-13 which reads as under:- 13. “The learned Single Judge of the High Court has found fault as the plaintiff landlord did not give evidence after the above amendment of the plaint. In our opinion it is not necessary as the above amendment was not rebutted by the defendant tenant.” 13. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 679 in paragraph-13 which reads as under:- 13. “The learned Single Judge of the High Court has found fault as the plaintiff landlord did not give evidence after the above amendment of the plaint. In our opinion it is not necessary as the above amendment was not rebutted by the defendant tenant.” 13. Now coming to the facts of the this case, it will be pertinent to mention here the relevant portion of the exact verbatim of the written statement of the defendant No.2-appellant in paragraph-7 of its written statement dated 08.02.1996 which reads as- “This defendant at present only admits the vehicle in question that is the truck bearing No.BR-20B-9516, if involved in the accident was insured with this defendant under the policy particulars given by the plaintiff as per column-15 of the claim application, at the material time.” 14. After going through this categorical admission made by the defendant, this Court is of the considered view that there was no necessity for the plaintiff or the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to prove the policy particulars. So far as this contention is concerned, I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned tribunal erred by not considering the supplementary written statement. As already mentioned above Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure certainly bars filing of any additional pleading without the leave of the court. Mr. Ghosh learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that there is nothing in the record to suggest that leave has ever been obtained by the defendant No.2-appellant for filing any additional pleading. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity in the findings of the learned tribunal that the offending vehicle was insured by the defendant No.2- appellant insurance company at the time of accident and settling the defendant No.2-appellant insurance company with the liability to pay the compensation amount awarded. 15. Thus, the sole point of determination is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. 17. The appellant-insurance company is directed to make payment to the plaintiffs-claimants within one month from the date of receipt or production of copy of this order. 15. Thus, the sole point of determination is answered accordingly. 16. In the result, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. 17. The appellant-insurance company is directed to make payment to the plaintiffs-claimants within one month from the date of receipt or production of copy of this order. In case the appellant defendant No.2 produces the proof of payment of compensation amount to the respondent Nos.1 and 2- the claimants, the statutory amount, if any deposited by the insurance company, be released by the Registrar General of this Court to the Insurance Company. 18. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned tribunal along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.