ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.36 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the said I.A. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said I.A. under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3. The petitioner/plaintiff, filed the above said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.05.2006. The 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3, respondents in the present petition, filed their respective written statements. The petitioner filed the said I.A., inter alia, stating that the defendants 2 and 3, filed written statement with inconsistent pleas, raised additional pleas and contentions and as such, he was advised to file rejoinder to traverse the same. Along with the said I.A., the petitioner also filed rejoinder. 3. Respondents filed a counter stating inter alia that raising of new pleas and additional contentions etc, is not sufficient to seek permission to file rejoinder, that there are no cogent reasons for seeking the relief prayed for, as they have filed written statement on 01.06.2017 and that after commencement of trial, the petitioner is not entitled to file rejoinder. It is also stated in the counter that without explaining the reasons for the delay, the I.A. was filed only with a view to fill up the lacuna, which the plaintiff noticed in view of dismissal of O.S.Nos.465 and 789 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, which were filed by the persons in the group of the petitioner/plaintiff, and the same cannot be entertained. The trial Court, after considering the contentions advanced on both sides, dismissed the I.A. vide order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present C.R.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yallabandi Ramatirtha, contended that the order of the trial Court is unsustainable and constitutes improper exercise of powers vested in it. The trial Court, after considering the contentions advanced on both sides, dismissed the I.A. vide order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present C.R.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yallabandi Ramatirtha, contended that the order of the trial Court is unsustainable and constitutes improper exercise of powers vested in it. In support of his contention, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner earlier filed I.A.No.1085 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants in the suit and the same was allowed on 22.03.2017 and that the 3rd respondent filed a separate application in I.A.No.806 of 2012 seeking permission to represent the 1st defendant in the suit and as the said I.A. was allowed, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No1681 of 2017 before this Court and that by virtue of the interim orders granted in the said C.R.P., the proceedings in O.S.No.110 of 2009 were stayed. He further submits that during the pendency of the said C.R.P. and operation of stay granted therein, the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed their written statement and that after the dismissal of the C.R.P. on 28.11.2018, the necessity to file the rejoinder occurred, more particularly, in view of the inconsistent additional/new pleas taken by the defendants 2 and 3 and that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel submits that to prove his bonafides, the petitioner also filed rejoinder along with the above said I.A. and that itself shows the readiness on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff to proceed in the matter and that the learned trial Court, without appreciation of these crucial aspects, went wrong in dismissing the I.A. He further contends that the pleas taken by the respondents 2 and 3 which are contradictory to that of respondent No.1, unless traversed by way of rejoinder, would remain uncontroverted and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, prays for setting aside the orders of the trial Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in VYRICHARLA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. B. KRISHNA MOHAN, 2019 (5) ALT 209 (AP) . 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in VYRICHARLA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. B. KRISHNA MOHAN, 2019 (5) ALT 209 (AP) . 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.G.Ramachandra Reddy, strenuously submitted that the I.A. filed by the petitioner is lacking in merits, bonafidesand filed with a view to protract the litigation and no reasons were explained for the delay in filing the said application in the trial Court. He further submitted that the said application was filed with a view to cover up the lacuna, after coming to know about the dismissal of suits, O.S.No.465 and 789 of 2009, filed by persons who belong to the group of the plaintiff. He submitted that the petitioner/ plaintiff had not explained the additional facts in the affidavit which necessitated the filing of rejoinder. He also contended that the petitioner is entitled to file rejoinder only in the event a counter-claim or set-off is claimed but not in other circumstances. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in KONETI LAKSHMI THULASAMMA v. GANGAVARAM VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY, 2002(1) ALT 114 wherein it is observed as follows: “5. The right conferred by C.P.C. on the defendant to present additional written statement is not an absolute right. In case, any set off or counter claim is made in the written statement, the plaintiff is entitled to file rejoinder. But as per Rule 9 of Order VIII, it is competent for any Court to grant leave to the defendant to file pleadings subsequent to filing of the written statement. The discretion has to be exercised by the trial Court having regard to Order VIII Rule 7 and Rule 9. In this case, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendant has already taken all the pleadings, in the written statement and therefore additional written statement cannot be permitted especially when the plaintiff has not taken steps for amending the plaint. Such exercise of discretion, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to suffer from any error, much less any error which occasions failure of justice to the petitioner herein.” 6. Such exercise of discretion, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to suffer from any error, much less any error which occasions failure of justice to the petitioner herein.” 6. The learned counsel also contended that the application seeking permission to file rejoinder was not filed at the earliest point of time and the same cannot be entertained and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of Trial Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in C. ANANTHA KISHAN v. K. RAMESH KUMAR, 1993 (1) ALT 708 wherein it is observed as under: “…There is no whisper in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as to why this application could not be filed earlier. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Courts cannot allow application for amendment of pleadings as a matter of right for the parties or as a matter of duty of the Court….” 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the issue for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file rejoinder or it’s order requires interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 8. For arriving at the conclusion on the point for consideration, the submissions made on behalf of both the counsel require detailed consideration. 9. In this context, the aspects which necessitated the filing of rejoinder are crucial. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as seen from the material on record, on the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1681 of 2017, wherein this Court initially granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.110 of 2009, by an order dated 28.04.2017. While the said interim stay was in operation, the respondents 2 and 3 filed their written statement on 01.06.2017. Thereafter, by considering the material, on merits, this Court was pleased to dismiss the said C.R.P. vide order dated 28.11.2018, thereby the stay which was in operation stood vacated. After dismissal of the said C.R.P. the petitioner herein filed the above mentioned I.A. seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. After dismissal of the said C.R.P. the petitioner herein filed the above mentioned I.A. seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleas initially taken by defendant No.1 in his written statement dated 29.10.2009 and in the written statements dated 01.06.2017 filed subsequently by the defendants 2 and 3. A mere perusal of the written statements filed by respondents 2 and 3 would clearly justify the petitioner’s prayer seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder on the ground that new, additional and contradictory pleas have been taken by the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel’s submission with regard to non-filing of an application seeking leave to file rejoinder at the earliest point of time since stay was in operation and after dismissal of the C.R.P., the application was filed along with rejoinder deserves acceptance, more particularly, in view of the pleas taken by respondents 2 and 3 in the written statement in contradiction to the pleas of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner has not filed the application immediately after filing of written statement by respondents 2 and 3, cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as the petitioner has taken immediate steps for filing the application on dismissal of the C.R.P., more particularly, in the factual matrix of the case as pleaded by the petitioner. 10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that only in the event of a counter-claim or set-off is pleaded in the written statement, the petitioner/plaintiff would be entitled to file rejoinder, also cannot be appreciated. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the Judgment rendered by this Court in PUNURU VIJAYA LAKSHMI v. PUNURU VENKATA REDDY, 2000(5) ALD 108 wherein a learned single Judge has dealt with Order VIII Rule 8 and 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: “8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, it is appropriate now to refer to Order 8, Rule 8 and 9 CPC : Order 8, Rule 8: New ground of defence. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: “8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, it is appropriate now to refer to Order 8, Rule 8 and 9 CPC : Order 8, Rule 8: New ground of defence. "Any ground of defence which has arisen after the institution of the suit or the presentation of a written statement claiming a set-off or counter -claim may be raised by the defendant or plaintiff, as the case may be, in his written statement." Order 8, Rule 9: Subsequent pleadings. "No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a 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 for presenting the same." 9. A close reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that the scope of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC is much wider than Rule 8. Order 8, Rule 8 CPC (which deals with new ground of defence) permits either party to the suit to raise only a new ground of defence, which has arisen subsequent to the filing of the suit or filing of the written statement (as the case may be) claiming set-off or counterclaim. Whereas, Order 8, Rule 9 CPC not only permits filing of subsequent pleadings, as a matter right, in cases where the defendant sets up a counter-claim or pleads set-off in his written statement, but also in other cases with the leave of the Court. Thus, under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC a plaintiff can file a rejoinder with the leave of the Court even in cases where the defendant has not pleaded set-off or a counter-claim. This position is now well settled.” 11. In another Judgment in MALGIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA v. THIPPANA NARSI REDDY, 2010(3) ALD 82 another learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with Order VIII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure held as follows :- “12. The primary object of subsequent pleading is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally or to deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the opposite party. The primary object of subsequent pleading is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally or to deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the opposite party. In the rejoinder the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement………..” 12. Further, in VYRICHARLA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (1 supra) relied upon by the petitioner, while dealing with the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 and Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., a learned single Judge of this Court discussed the scope of Order VIII Rule 9 also and held as follows: “35. In terms of Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., additional pleadings can be raised by a party to the suit, be it the plaintiff or the defendant…. 36. Even otherwise, in all the situations it is not as though the parties are precluded from filing subsequent pleadings either by means of rejoinder by the plaintiff in order to controvert the case of the defendants or in order to meet the case sought to be projected by the plaintiff by the proposed amendments, by filing additional written statement by the defendants…..” 13. In view of the consistent view taken by this Court in the above referred Judgments, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be rejected. The Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in C.ANANTHA KISHAN (2 supra) and KONETI LAKSHMI THULASAMMA (3 supra) are therefore of no avail. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that only after dismissal of O.S.Nos.465 and 789 of 2009, the petitioner came up with an application to fill up the lacuna, also cannot be accepted, in view of the facts and circumstances and more particularly, in the light of pleas taken by the respondents 2 and 3 in their written statement. 15. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents on the aspect of non-mentioning of facts which prompted filing of rejoinder, the same merits no consideration. It is settled law that under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. the plaintiff can be permitted to file rejoinder to explain the additional facts which had been incorporated in the written statement even though the same were not mentioned in the application seeking leave. It is settled law that under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. the plaintiff can be permitted to file rejoinder to explain the additional facts which had been incorporated in the written statement even though the same were not mentioned in the application seeking leave. In this regard, it is trite to refer to the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in ALOOR SUBRAHMANYAM v. SUTHRAM PRABHAKAR AND ANOTHER, 2012(3) ALD 202 wherein it was held that: “9. Order VIII Rule 9 CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. It has imposed bar on the parties filing pleadings subsequent to the filing of the written statement other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim, except by the leave of the Court. This provision per se does not stipulate any limitations on the power of the Court to allow the parties to file subsequent pleadings. However, the Courts have interpreted this provision by reading certain limitations into the same, obviously to ensure that the scope of the proceedings is not unduly enlarged and the suit proceedings are not dragged on in the guise of filing subsequent pleadings. 10. In Shikharchand Jain (3 supra), the Supreme Court broadly indicated three parameters on which leave for filing subsequent pleadings can be granted. They are: (1) the relief claimed originally by reason of subsequent change has become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation; or (3) to do complete justice between the parties. 11. In Sardar Darshan Singh (2 supra), this Court has held that while permitting subsequent pleadings, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas or alter the cause of action. 12. In Malgireddy Venkata Ramana (1 supra), this Court held that the primary object of subsequent pleading is to supply what has been omitted inadvertently or unintentionally or to deny or clarify the facts stated in the pleadings of the opposite party, that in the rejoinder the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts, which have been incorporated in the written statement and that the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as both are contextually different. 13. 13. In my opinion, the legislature has designedly omitted to lay down any guidelines restricting the scope of the Courts to specific instances while granting leave for filing subsequent pleadings. From this itself, the legislative intention can be gathered to the effect that unless the Court forms an opinion that the application for leave is filed for reasons, such as procrastinating the suit proceedings or to widen the scope of the suit or change the nature and character of the suit proceedings, the applications shall ordinarily be allowed. By permitting such subsequent pleadings, the Courts can avoid multiplicity of proceedings. That approach will also help the Court to comprehensively and effectually decide all the questions arising in the case with reference to the complete information furnished by the parties through their original as well as subsequent pleadings. 14. Viewed from this angle, the provision of Order VIII Rule 9 needs to be construed in a manner which would ordinarily permit the party to file subsequent pleadings rather than scuttling their right to do so. A caveat is, however, entered that in the guise of such applications, the parties cannot be permitted to indulge in filing frivolous and vexatious petitions even where the need for filing subsequent pleadings does not exist. It is eventually for the Courts to make a delicate balance between the expediency of permitting subsequent pleadings and discouraging the frivolous and merit less applications.” 16. In view of the various Judgments of this Court referred supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking leave to file rejoinder. Further, allowing of a rejoinder, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not in any way prejudice the case of the respondents as the tenability or otherwise of the statements/matters set out in the rejoinder would be considered in the suit. Therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge in view of the legal position deserves to be interfered with, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order and decree, dated 29.11.2019, passed in I.A.No.36 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 by the learned VIII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, and consequently, the I.A.No.36 of 2019 stands allowed. 18. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order and decree, dated 29.11.2019, passed in I.A.No.36 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2009 by the learned VIII Additional District Court, Vijayawada, and consequently, the I.A.No.36 of 2019 stands allowed. 18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs.