ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.960 of 2019 in O.S.No.404 of 2009, dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defendant. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondents No.s 2 to 4 are the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The 1st respondent filed suit in O.S.No.404 of 2009 for partition of the schedule properties against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “trial Court”). During the course of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.960 of 2019 under Order VIII Rule IX of the CPC by contending that herself and her son viz., late Singaiah had succeeded the property to an extent of Ac.3.67 cents which were stands in the name of her husband at Pallamalli village, which was got by him through settlement deed executed by his maternal uncle Karicheti Anjaneyulu and further she is having half share in the amount and those were collected by the 1st respondent /plaintiff from the postal and LIC authorities, on account of intestate death of her son and by mistakenly those particulars are not placed in her written statement by way of schedule, so as to partition the same in between them. There is no dispute about the existence of the same and the said facts are admitted by the 1st respondent herein in her evidence. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. 3. No counter was preferred by the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein. 4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant. 5. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. 3. No counter was preferred by the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein. 4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant. 5. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not permitted to file additional written statement, much prejudice will cause to the petitioner as the suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and the pleading to add some more properties as schedule in the schedule properties is neither a counter claim nor a set off and mere adding the two more properties to the suit schedule, the nature of the suit and cause of action for the suit will not change and no prejudice will cause to the 1st respondent/ plaintiff herein and prays this Court to allow the Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others, 2009 SCC Online SC 1253 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 10. So far as this ground is concerned, we do not find that delay is a ground for which the additional counter statement could not be allowed, as it is well settled that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement. At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement which could easily be compensated by cost. That apart, the delay in filing the additional counter statement has been properly explained by the appellant.” 15. It is also well settled that the courts should be more generous in allowing the amendment of the counter statement of the defendant then in the case of plaint. The High Court in its impugned order has also observed that in order to file an additional counter statement, it would be open to the defendant to take inconsistent plea. It is also well settled that the courts should be more generous in allowing the amendment of the counter statement of the defendant then in the case of plaint. The High Court in its impugned order has also observed that in order to file an additional counter statement, it would be open to the defendant to take inconsistent plea. The prayer for acceptance of the additional counter statement was rejected by the High Court on the ground that while allowing such additional counter statement to be accepted, it has to be seen whether it was expedient with reference to the circumstances of the case to permit such a plea being put forward at that stage.” (2) Soundaraessane @ Soundaressin @ Soundaraju reptd., by his power of Attorney Toulukkanam Radjam Vs. Pouchepavady @Pouchepagandy and others, 2002 SCC online Mad 272 wherein the High Court of Madras held that: ”In this connection, I am obliged to refer Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., which reads as follows: “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 C ourt 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.” 8. A reading of the above makes it clear that the mere want of claim to set-off or counter-claim, by itself, cannot be a ground to refuse leave for granting permission to raise subsequent pleadings. In other words, even in the absence of an set-off or counter-claim, the Court, if satisfied, can grant leave to raise subsequent pleadings, and therefore, what is required under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., is that the defendant should satisfy the Court as to the relevancy of the subsequent pleadings, and while granting such leave, the discretion conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., should be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice, of course, without encouraging the parties to bring a new case by furnishing new details. 9. Yet another consideration in exercising the discretion and granting leave under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., would be to see whether the plaintiff is prejudiced by such subsequent pleadings in any way. 9. Yet another consideration in exercising the discretion and granting leave under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., would be to see whether the plaintiff is prejudiced by such subsequent pleadings in any way. In the absence of any prejudice by subsequent pleadings, in my considered opinion, the discretion conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 9, C.P.C., should be exercised liberally; as otherwise, it will not be possible for the parties to the litigation to prove their respective case, in consolidate, as a result of which, finality of the litigation will not be reached, giving way for multiplicity of litigation, and consequently, ends of justice will not be met.” (3) In Baby Vs. Sebatian, 2007 SCC online Ker 547 wherein the High Court of Kerala held that: "Pleadings" have been defined in the Code under Order VI Rule 1 to mean "plaint or written statement". Order VIII Rule 9 deals with pleadings subsequent to plaint and written statement. "Subsequent pleadings" can be either by the plaintiff or by the defendant. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge that subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 are contemplated from the side of the defendant only when he raises pleas of set off or counter-claim is clearly erroneous. What Rule 9 provides is only that no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter-claim shall be presented except with the leave of the court. It is thus clear that the reference to set off or counter-claim under Rule 9 of Order VIII is reference to subsequent pleadings raised by the plaintiff and not to subsequent pleadings raised by the defendant. As far as subsequent pleadings raised by the defendant are concerned and for any WP(C)No.27672/05 subsequent pleadings from the plaintiff other than those by way of defence to the pleas of set off and counter-claim, what is necessary is that the leave of the court shall be obtained. Additional pleadings raised by the defendants subsequent to the written statement originally filed by them under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are often referred to as additional written statements. Filing of additional written statement may be necessitated for the purpose of introducing new contentions or for clarifying or elaborating on the contentions already raised. Additional pleadings raised by the defendants subsequent to the written statement originally filed by them under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are often referred to as additional written statements. Filing of additional written statement may be necessitated for the purpose of introducing new contentions or for clarifying or elaborating on the contentions already raised. That need not necessarily be for raising pleas of set off or counter-claim, since having regard to the rules of limitation applicable to pleas of set off and counter-claim, defendant may have to raise such pleas at the earliest opportunity itself. 6. It was submitted at the Bar that written statement raising a defence to the plea of set off or counter-claim is often referred to as "rejoinder". I do not think so. In fact, S.Sankarasubban, J. had occasion, in Sunil & Vasanth v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. ( 1999 (1) KLT 61 ), to deal with various types of pleadings which are raised by parties in actual practice though the Code of Civil Procedure envisages only plaints and written statements as pleadings. His Lordship observed, relying on Kochukesavan Nair v. Gouri Amma ( 1967 KLT 257 ), WP(C)No.27672/05 that the word "replication" is the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's pleas through his written statement (which need not necessarily be one raising a plea of set off or counterclaim) and "rejoinder" is the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's replication. His Lordship in fact noticed that the judgment of another learned Judge of this Court, K.P.Balanarayana Marar, J., in Sujir Keshav Nayak v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak ( 1991 (2) KLJ 37 ) had deprecated the practice of filing replications since, according to that learned Judge, filing of replications was not contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, Sankarasubban, J. preferred to follow the judgment in Kochukesavan Nair's case (supra) on the view that the said decision had almost become stare decisis and on the reason that the decision of K.P.Balanarayana Marar, J. in Sujir Keshav Nayak's case (supra) was reversed by the Supreme Court, though on other points. 7. There is no denying the fact that the practice of filing of replications by plaintiffs by way answering defendants' pleas in their written statements and of filing of rejoinder by defendants by way of answer to the contentions raised by plaintiffs through their replications is in vogue in various parts of the State. 7. There is no denying the fact that the practice of filing of replications by plaintiffs by way answering defendants' pleas in their written statements and of filing of rejoinder by defendants by way of answer to the contentions raised by plaintiffs through their replications is in vogue in various parts of the State. In common law pleading also, the word "replication" is in usage and the same means reply WP(C)No.27672/05 made to the defendant's plea or answer. Similarly, "rejoinder" is used in common law pleading to refer to the second pleading of the defendant, being his answer to the plaintiff's replication (see Black's Law Dictionary). Interestingly in language the words replication and rejoinder are almost synonymous. The ratio of Justice Marar's decision in Sujir Keshav Nayak's case (supra) also is only that replications cannot be filed as a matter of right or course and that leave of the court will be absolutely necessary under Order VIII Rule 9. According to me, it will be sufficient if the courts understand all pleadings subsequent to the original plaint and written statement filed in the suit, by whatever name they are called, as "subsequent pleadings" governed by Order VIII Rule 9. 8. There certainly is some force in the submission of Mr.Jijo Paul that most of the averments in the proposed additional written statement sought to be filed by the petitioner were well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he filed the original written statement and that he has not offered any explanation in his affidavit in support of the leave application as to why those averments could not be raised earlier. At the same time, it cannot be said that the additional contentions sought to be raised through the additional WP (C) No. 27672/05 written statement are totally irrelevant for adjudication of the issues in the suit. I am therefore of the view that the application submitted by the petitioner should have been allowed by the court below, but on terms.” (04) In Thiyagarajan Vs. Manivannan, 2006 SCC Online Mad 829 wherein the High Court of Judicature, Madras held that: “In 1999(1) CTC 458 (cited supra), this court held that the trial court is wrong in rejecting application to accept the reply statement on the ground that it cannot be filed after examining the witnesses. 11. Manivannan, 2006 SCC Online Mad 829 wherein the High Court of Judicature, Madras held that: “In 1999(1) CTC 458 (cited supra), this court held that the trial court is wrong in rejecting application to accept the reply statement on the ground that it cannot be filed after examining the witnesses. 11. In 1999(3) CTC 52 (cited supra), this court held as follows:- "9. It is not the intention of the legislature that no pleading subsequent to the written statement should be allowed other than for reasons given therein. But the intention is that without the leave of the Court, no pleading subsequent to the written statement shall be presented. Hence, it goes without saying that the subsequent statement or additional statement could be filed only with the leave of the Court on such terms, as the Court thinks fit. The approach of Law in permitting the court to grant leave in such cases is positive. But, the Court while granting the leave could direct the petitioner to comply with certain terms that the Court thinks fit and hence absolutely there is no impediment or hurdle or legal barrier putforth by the Rule in allowing any additional statement subsequent to the written statement and the only shot provided in the arms of the court for granting leave is that it could allow the application on such terms as it thinks fit. The same power could also be suo motu exercised by the Court as per the concluding part of the Rule. The Rule has been liberally construed so far as the Court granting the leave to present such additional statements and discretion is given to the Court either to allow or to reject and while allowing it could do the same on such terms as the court thinks fit. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that in all such cases, wherein the defendant approaches the court with an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to grant leave, Courts are expected to be liberal in granting the leave but of course on terms as the Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the individual case." 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments of his affidavit and prays to dismiss the Revision Petition. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) In Chandra & others Vs. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the averments of his affidavit and prays to dismiss the Revision Petition. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) In Chandra & others Vs. Ranganathan, 2005 SCC online Mad 562, wherein the High Court of Madras held that: “The object of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the respective parties, should fully know of the case before the parties go in for trial, so that, the trial may proceed in that well defined channel. Now, by putting forth new set of facts, after the Plaintiff's evidence is closed, the Defendants are only attempting to divert the process of trial. If the application is allowed, there would be no remedy to the Plaintiff to adduce proper evidence, thereby, meeting the defence plea set forth.” (2) In Murthi Gounder Vs. Karuppanna Gounder, 1975 SCC Online Mad 201 wherein the High Court of Madras held that: “This is a case where nearly 2 years after having filed his written statement, the first defendant had acquired some further information and wanted to set up a case which is different from the case which he had originally set up in his written statement. Considering the stage at which such an application has been filed, undoubtedly, prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff who will now be forced to file a reply statement and as a consequence thereof, fresh and different issues will have to be framed and the trial would have to begin once over again. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the learned District Munsif rightly refused to permit the revision petitioner to file the additional written statement. I see no ground to interfere.” (3) In A. Manohar Prasad and others Vs. Prasad Production Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director A. Ramesh Prasad, 2018 SCC online Mad 7100, wherein the High Court of Madras held that: “13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in 2000 (1) L.W. 420 [H.Ramachandra Rao V. A.Mohideen] has been subsequently relied upon in the other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in 2005 (4) L.W. 482 [Chandra, Chinnadurai and Poongavanam V. Ranganathan]. The relevant portion of the judgment is also extracted as follows: '11. The application under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., had been filed belatedly. The relevant portion of the judgment is also extracted as follows: '11. The application under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C., had been filed belatedly. As stated earlier, on behalf of the plaintiffs, five witnesses had been examined and cross examined. At that stage, nearly seven years after the filing of the written statement, the second defendant had filed I.A.No.533 of 2000 under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C., to receive additional written statement. When the evidence on the side of the plaintiff's had nearly completed, the second defendant was not justified in filing the application to receive the additional written statement. If the additional written statement is entertained at this stage, the plaintiffs would be deprived of the opportunity in meeting the facts and pleadings put forth in the additional written statement. 12. The object of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the respective parties, should fully know of the case before the parties go in for trial, so that, the trial may proceed in that well defined channel. Now, by putting forth new set of facts, after the plaintiff's evidence is closed, the defendants are only attempting to divert the process of trial. If the application is allowed, there would be no remedy to the plaintiff to adduce proper evidence, thereby, meeting the defence plea set forth. 13. In a similar case, where evidence of plaintiffs was over, where the application was filed under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C., to receive additional written statement, that application was dismissed by the lower Court which was confirmed by this Court in the decision reported in 2000 (1) LW 420 (H.Ramachandra Rao Vs. A.Mohideen) holding that when the entire evidence of plaintiff was over, fresh pleadings under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C., cannot be allowed. Justice S.S.Subramani has held thus:- 'In this case, entire evidence of plaintiff is over. If fresh pleadings are allowed to take place, plaintiff will be put to hardship and entire case will have to be reopened. First written statement was filed in the year 1992 and it was seven years after leave is sought for to file written statement. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is nowhere stated in the affidavit. Petitioner cannot contend or insist that Court must receive additional pleadings as of right. Permission has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. Why petitioner waited for these seven years for filing the application is nowhere stated in the affidavit. Petitioner cannot contend or insist that Court must receive additional pleadings as of right. Permission has to be obtained under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. Under what circumstances leave is to be granted and how the discretion is to be exercised depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In all such cases, party who seeks leave has to explain as to why this connection was not raised in the earlier pleadings. While exercising discretion, the Court will consider the conduct of the party, stage of the litigation, delay that has occasioned, how far the opposite party will be put to hardship etc., The above observation squarely applies to the case in hand where the defendant has filed the additional written statement nearly seven years after the filing of the written statement. 14. The above order is self explanatory and in support of the findings rendered by this Court in the present order. 15. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, it can only be held that an application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, without adducing any reason for justifying the delay in raising pleas through an additional written statement or filing an application at a belated stage, does not deserve any consideration for exercise of the discretion of the trial Court in granting leave.” 8. The contention of the petitioner is that herself and her son viz., late Singaiah had succeeded the property, to an extent of Ac.3.67 cents which were stands in the name of petitioner’s husband at Pallamalli village, which was got by him through settlement deed executed by petitioner’s husband maternal uncle viz., Karicheti Anjaneyulu and in that property the petitioner is having half share in the amounts and those were collected by the 1st respondent from the postal and LIC authorities, on account of death of her son. Per contra, the respondents did not choose to file their counter in the trial Court. 9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the 1st respondent filed suit for partition of the schedule properties. The petitioner filed this petition to file additional written statement by mentioning two more properties in the schedule, which are not mentioned in the plaint schedule properties. 9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the 1st respondent filed suit for partition of the schedule properties. The petitioner filed this petition to file additional written statement by mentioning two more properties in the schedule, which are not mentioned in the plaint schedule properties. Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition of the joint family properties between plaintiff and defendants. Without adding the two more properties contended by this petitioner, the trial Court cannot adjudicate the suit proceedings properly. Moreover, the petitioner in her affidavit clearly contended that the said facts admitted by the 1st respondent in her evidence and no additional oral or documentary evidence are required in this regard and no prejudice will caused to the 1st respondent by adding these properties in the schedule. Furthermore, the respondents did not choose to file counter in the impugned order petition. 10. In the Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly observed that it is well settled that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement. At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement which could easily be compensated by cost. In this case also, the 1st respondent did not file any counter in the trial Court and the same is recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order. Since the suit is filed for partition of the joint family properties and the proposed adding properties are also in the notice of the 1st respondent, by adding these properties into the schedule properties by way of filing additional written statement by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice will cause to the either parties. Admittedly, the petitioner filed this petition in belated stage and to meet the ends of justice, it could be compensated by imposing costs. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner filed this petition in belated stage and to meet the ends of justice, it could be compensated by imposing costs. 11. By applying the principles and settled law in the judgment referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court is not proper to dismiss the petition, merely on the ground that the petitioner filed this petition at belated stage and it is untenable and is not proper in the eye of law and the interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed on payment of costs. The order dated 18.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.960 of 2019 in O.S.No.404 of 2009 by the trial Court is hereby set aside and further the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the suit account, before the trial Court on or before 30th day June 2023, failing which, I.A.No.960 of 2019 shall stands dismissed. Further, if the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.2,000/- within the stipulated period, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two (02) months, since the suit pertains to the year 2009 and both the parties shall co-operate to the Court in suit proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.