V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The defendant is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff- respondent filed the suit being O.S.No. 413 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah. The suit is one for eviction and possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he is absolute owner under a registered sale deed dated 18-6-1992, that on the same day the husband of the petitioner was inducted as tenant for running a workshop, that the husband of the defendant closed the workshop in 1994 and left the country and thereafter the defendant is using the demised premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out and that after issuing notice dated 12-5-1999 under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, the suit has been filed.
2. The petitioner herein has filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and also set up a sale deed dated 28-5-1975 allegedly in favour of the husband of the defendant. She also alleged that the sale deed dated 18-6-1992 is a nominal sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The petitioner filed the present application being I.A.No. 1579 of 2000 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’ for brevity) contending that in the sale deed set up by the plaintiff the defendant and her husband are shown as attestors, that their signatures were forged and therefore she wants to file additional written statement. The trial Court after examining the pleadings in the Interlocutory application and having regard to the written statement already filed came to a conclusion that the written statement of the defendant covers all the pleadings and that by seeking permission to file additional written statement, the defendant is trying to make similar allegations already made in the written statement. Further, the trial Court also came to a conclusion that under Order VIII Rule 8 C.P.C. unless there is counter claim or set off, the defendant cannot be permitted to bring on record new grounds of defence. Accordingly by order dated 29-12-2000 I.A.No. 1579 of 2000 was dismissed.
4. In this C.R.P. Sri Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order VIII Rule 9, the Court has discretion to grant leave to the defendant to file additional written statement and that the trial Court failed to exercise discretion in an appropriate manner.
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. In result, the C.R.P. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
