JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 20.12.2013 passed in I.A. No.260 of 2013 in O.S.No.401 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in the suit in order to challenge the order dated 04.06.2013 whereby, an interim application filed by the first Respondent in the suit, under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, for leave to file an additional written statement was allowed by the trial Court. The facts that are relevant for the purposes of disposing of this Civil Revision Petition are briefly stated herein. The Revision Petitioner herein filed a suit in the year 1999, originally numbered as O.S. No.482 of 1999, for a declaration that he is one of the first Trustees of the Akshaya Vidyalaya Charitable Trust (the Charitable Trust) and for a permanent injunction to restrain the second Defendant from disbursing loans to the Charitable Trust. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul and renumbered as O.S.No.401 of 2010. 2. The Respondent herein/first Defendant filed the written statement in the said suit on 22.06.2000. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff filed an interim application in I.A.No.387 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 09.03.2010 on the basis that it was filed belatedly and for the purpose of protracting the proceedings in the suit. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a proof affidavit in April 2011. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent herein filed I.A.No.497 of 2012 so as to examine Sivasankaramoorthy as DW-1 before the said Respondent is examined as a witness. Eventually, the said application was dismissed as 'not pressed' on 03.10.2012. Meanwhile, the evidence of the Plaintiff was concluded sometime in the year 2012. Subsequent thereto, I.A.No. 260 of 2013 was filed by the Respondent/first Defendant to file an additional written statement. In the affidavit in support of the said application, it is stated that the suit was posted for the Defendant's evidence on 04.06.2013 and that, at that juncture, the Respondent/first Defendant's counsel advised him that certain vital facts were omitted in the written statement and that the said facts are vital to prove the case. In the affidavit in support of the said application, it is stated that the suit was posted for the Defendant's evidence on 04.06.2013 and that, at that juncture, the Respondent/first Defendant's counsel advised him that certain vital facts were omitted in the written statement and that the said facts are vital to prove the case. In this regard, it is also stated therein that the original written statement was filed through the earlier counsel and that the advise with regard to the omission of vital facts was provided by the present counsel namely, Shri.N.Ramalingam and Shri.P.Dhandapani, Advocates, Dindigul. 3. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the additional facts are only an explanation of the real facts and that the introduction of the new plea would not change the character of the suit. The said application was opposed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff by filing a counter. In the said counter, the Revision Petitioner stated that the interim application for filing an additional written statement was filed in order to avoid the disclosure of the truth during the examination of the Respondent/first Defendant. He further stated therein that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff was cross-examined on the basis of the plaint, the documents and the written statement. It is also stated therein that the additional written statement is liable to be rejected because it has been submitted belatedly and after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and PW-2. However, the trial Court allowed the said application on the basis that the statements in the additional written statement are not contrary to the statements in the original written statement. 4. The trial Court further held that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff would be permitted to file a reply statement to the additional written statement and that permitting the Respondent/first Defendant to file an additional written statement would not alter the nature or character of the suit and that the said additional written statement is not contrary to or different from the original written statement. On that basis, the said application was allowed and the said order is impugned herein. 5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the application was filed in the year 2013, which is about two years after the commencement of the trial. He pointed out that the Plaintiff's evidence was concluded sometime in the year 2012, after the first Defendant cross examined PW-1 & PW-2. 5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the application was filed in the year 2013, which is about two years after the commencement of the trial. He pointed out that the Plaintiff's evidence was concluded sometime in the year 2012, after the first Defendant cross examined PW-1 & PW-2. 6. He further submitted that the application filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, as early as in 2010, for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the Court by order dated 09.03.2010 on the ground of delay. He further submitted that the Respondent/first Defendant filed I.A.No.497 of 2012 for the purpose of first cross-examining another Trustee called Sivasankaramoorthy but subsequently did not press the said application. The present application was filed, thereafter, in June 2013. He further submitted that the additional written statement contains new material facts such as the names of several persons, who are described as trustees of the Charitable Trust. After enumerating the names of such persons, he submitted that the Respondent/first Defendant has pleaded in the additional written statement that such persons should have been impleaded in the suit and that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. He further pointed out that the Respondent/first Defendant stated in paragraph 6 of the additional written statement that the first Trustees of the Charitable Trust, namely, Thiru. N. Sivasankaramoorthy, Thiru. R. Ashok and Thiru. N. Jyothivel resigned as Trustees in the year 1994 and that their resignation was unanimously accepted by the then Board of Trustees by resolution dated 17.08.1994. 8. With regard to the alleged resignation of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, he submitted that the Respondent/first Defendant had stated in the original written statement that the resignation letter was delivered to the Trust through its Trustee, namely, Sivasankaramoorthy, whereas, in the additional written statement, it is mentioned that, upon receipt of the resignation letter of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the first Defendant confirmed the said resignation with the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff. In this manner, he contended that additional facts have been introduced in the additional written statement which have the effect of completely altering the nature and character of the defence so as to fill up the lacunae exposed during the course of the trial. Similarly, he submitted that the additional written statement contains new allegations with regard to the alleged collusion between the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and another Trustee, namely, Ayyavoo Thangamani. 9. Similarly, he submitted that the additional written statement contains new allegations with regard to the alleged collusion between the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and another Trustee, namely, Ayyavoo Thangamani. 9. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chinnammal vs. Shanmugam 2007-3-L.W.205 wherein, at paragraph 17, this Court held that a new plea which is mutually destructive to the earlier plea should not be permitted to be raised by way of an additional written statement after the commencement of the trial because it would cause prejudice to the Plaintiff. Similarly, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Tajdeen vs. Abdul Muthalif (2009) 3 MLJ 959 , wherein the Court held at paragraph 5 that the Defendant should not be permitted to take an antithetical stand in the additional written statement and that the Court should grant leave to file an additional written statement only for sound reasons. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that no new facts and nothing inconsistent or contrary to the original written statement was pleaded in the additional written statement. In order to substantiate the submission, the learned counsel for the Respondent referred to the original written statement and, in particular, to paragraphs 4 & 5 thereof, wherein it is stated that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff did not participate in any of the General Body meetings of the Trust from the beginning. He further pointed out that it is stated in the original written statement that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff voluntarily submitted his resignation for personal reasons on 08.08.1998 and the said resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees on 10.08.1998 by passing a resolution for that purpose. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent/first Defendant, these foundational facts are reiterated in the additional written statement. 11. He also pointed out that it is stated therein that another Trustee called Jyothivelu resigned from the Trust on 16.08.1994 and that the said resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees on 17.08.1994. He also pointed out as to how it is stated in paragraph 5 of the original written statement that another trustee called Ayyavoo Thangamani attended all the trust meetings until his resignation from the Trust. He also pointed out as to how it is stated in paragraph 5 of the original written statement that another trustee called Ayyavoo Thangamani attended all the trust meetings until his resignation from the Trust. He, thereafter, referred to paragraph 6 of the additional written statement and pointed out that the averments therein are in consonance with the averments in the original written statement. In specific, he pointed out that in both the written statements it is stated that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff submitted his resignation on 08.08.1998 and that the said resignation letter was accepted by the Board of Trustees by an unanimous resolution passed on 10.08.1998. Therefore, he submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court, whereby the application for leave to file an additional written statement was allowed. 12. In support of the said submissions, he referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Subramanian vs. Jayaraman 1999 (III) CTC 52 wherein, at paragraph 6, this Court referred to the judgment in Chinnappan Vs. Ellammal, 1997 L.W.611 and held that the approach of the Court should be positive while considering an application for leave to file an additional written statement and that there is no legal barrier for allowing the additional statement subsequent to the written statement. He pointed out that the Court held that an application for leave to file an additional written statement should be considered liberally. By relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the Respondent/first Defendant concluded his submissions by stating that there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court and that the trial Court order is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 13. The pleadings, impugned order and oral submissions were considered carefully. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff continues to be a Trustee of the Charitable Trust of which the Respondent/first Defendant, Sivasankaramoorthy, Ayyavoo Thangamani, K.Ashok and Jyothivel were the first trustees. In the said plaint, it is further stated that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff along with another Trustee, namely, Ayyavoo Thangamani, presented a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 30.11.1999 against the Respondent/first Defendant. In the said plaint, it is further stated that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff along with another Trustee, namely, Ayyavoo Thangamani, presented a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 30.11.1999 against the Respondent/first Defendant. In response to the said plaint, in the original written statement dated 22.06.2000, the Respondent/first Defendant states that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff resigned from the Trust by submitting a resignation letter dated 08.08.1998, through another Trustee, Sivasankaramoorthy, which was accepted by the Board of Trustees at the meeting on 10.08.1998. It is further stated therein that another Trustee, namely, Jyothivelu, resigned from the Trust on 16.08.1994 and that his resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees on 17.08.1994. However, the said original written statement does not mention that any other Trustee had resigned or specify the date of resignation of such Trustees. 14. As regards Ayyavoo Thangamani, in paragraph 5 of the original written statement, it is stated that he attended all the Trust meetings until his resignation but does not mention the date of his resignation. Significantly, in the original written statement, there is no response to the averment in the plaint that the Plaintiff along with Ayyavoo Thangamani presented a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 30.11.1999 against the Respondent/first Defendant. 15. By contrast, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the additional written statement that Sivasankaramoorthy, R.Ashok and N.Jyothivel resigned from Trusteeship and that their resignation was unanimously accepted by the then Board of Trustees by resolution dated 17.08.1994. This averment is different from the averment in the original written statement to the effect that N.Jyothivel resigned on 16.08.1994 and that his resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees on 17.08.1994. In other words, the alleged resignation of Sivasankaramoorthy and R.Ashok and the acceptance thereof by the Board of Trustees by the resolution dated 17.08.1994 is mentioned for the first time in the additional written statement. Likewise, in paragraph 6 of the additional written statement (paragraph 6 is repeated) at page 47 of the typed set of papers, it is stated that Ayyavoo Thangamani also resigned on 17.08.1994 at the meeting of the Board of Trustees. This is also mentioned for the first time in the additional written statement. 16. Likewise, in paragraph 6 of the additional written statement (paragraph 6 is repeated) at page 47 of the typed set of papers, it is stated that Ayyavoo Thangamani also resigned on 17.08.1994 at the meeting of the Board of Trustees. This is also mentioned for the first time in the additional written statement. 16. It is further stated in the said paragraph that the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and Ayyavoo Thangamani were hand in glove and they presented a false complaint against the Respondent/first Defendant on account of personal vendetta. Once again, this is a new plea which was not taken in the original written statement although reference is made therein to Ayyavoo Thangamani. Moreover, the names of eight(08) persons are set out in paragraph 7 of the additional written statement and it is averred that the said persons are the other/new Trustees of the Charitable Trust, i.e. in addition to the Respondent/first Defendant and that the suit is barred for non-joinder of the said necessary parties. The names of the alleged new trustees and the plea of non-joinder are new pleas that were not taken in the original written statement. 17. From the aforesaid comparison of the original written statement and additional written statement, it is clear that the Respondent/first Defendant is attempting to project the picture that all the original trustees, except the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and the Respondent/first Defendant, resigned in August 1994 and that their resignation was accepted by the Board of Trustees on 17.08.1994. As regards the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the case of the Respondent/first Defendant is that he submitted a resignation letter on 08.08.1998 through Mr.Sivasankaramoorthy. As per the original written statement, the said Sivasankaramoorthy was a Trustee at the relevant point of time, i.e. in 1998, whereas, as per the additional written statement, the said Sivasankaramoorthy also resigned on August 1994. In effect, as per the additional written statement, other than the Respondent/first Defendant, none of the original Trustees continued as Trustees on the date of alleged resignation of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the pleadings in the original written statement and the additional written statement are inconsistent with regard to material facts. In effect, as per the additional written statement, other than the Respondent/first Defendant, none of the original Trustees continued as Trustees on the date of alleged resignation of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the pleadings in the original written statement and the additional written statement are inconsistent with regard to material facts. The inclusion of additional facts in the additional written statement, which are inconsistent with the original written statement, would certainly prejudice the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, especially when the said additional written statement is permitted to be filed after the cross-examination of PW-1 & PW-2. 18. Even with regard to the manner of communication of the alleged resignation letter of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, new facts with regard to the alleged confirmation of the receipt of the resignation by the Respondent/first Defendant have been added in the additional written statement, which would impact the evidence relating to and proof of the alleged resignation. Therefore, it appears that the new pleas in the additional written statement have been designed to overcome perceived weaknesses in the defence of the Respondent/first Defendant during the course of trial. 19. Consequently, I am of the view that the conclusion of the trial Court that the additional written statement does not contain anything contrary to or inconsistent with the original written statement is patently erroneous. In fact, as already stated, the inconsistency is with regard to facts that are vital for the purposes of the disposal of the suit. Consequently, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.260 of 2013. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 is closed.