1 APHC010433492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2150/2025 Between: 1. Geetala Praveen, S/O Geetala Sankaraiah, Age 32 Years Hindu, Resident Of 1st Floor, P.K.Swami Building,Opposite.El Bethel Church Gurrala Road, Narsiptanam-531116, Ankapalli District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Manchala Gopi Sunil Kumar, S/o Swarajeswara Rao, R/o Dr.no.33-4-11, Muttandi Ramalayam Street, Rajamahendravaram. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records relating to the order datedi7.03.2025, passed in I.A.No.552/2024 in OS.21/2022 on the file of the Honourable II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. And set aside the impugned dismissal orders dated Dt.17.03.2025 in I.A.552/2024 in OS.21//2022 and permit the petitioner to file additional written statement in support of his contest at the Court Below and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of the original order date 17-03-2025 copy in I.A.552 of 2024 in OS.21/2022 .on the file of the Ld. IIAddI Civil Judge 2 (Senior Division) at Rajamahendravaram (FTC) and to permit the Petitioner to file the Photo copy of the order date 17-03-2025 in and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Hon’ble II Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Rajamahendravram, pending disposal of the main revision petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GINJALA VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. POTHANA RAMA KOTESWARA RAO The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.552 of 2024 in O.S.No.21/2022 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division) (FTC), Rajamahendravaram. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.21/2022 filed for recovery of suit amount. In the said suit, petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.552/2024 under Order VIII Rule 9 seeking permission to file additional written statement. A counter was filed by the plaintiff denying the averments made by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the court below has dismissed the said application on the ground that the filing the said additional written statement would cause prejudice to the 3 plaintiff and it falls under abuse of process of law and delay tactics. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri Ginjala Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pothana Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application contended that, the trial court has failed to see the purport of Order VIII Rule 9 in a right perspective. He further submitted that, the trial court ought to have considered the reasons stated by the petitioner for filing the additional written statement. He further submitted that, the leave to file an additional written statement should be granted unless the party is acting malafide or the proposed pleading is intended to delay the proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner has valid reasons for filing the additional written statement and without appreciating the same, the trial court has dismissed the said application. As such prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent justified the orders of the court below contending that, the stand taken in the earlier written statement and the stand now taken in the additional written statement sought to be filed by the petitioner is inconsistent and that the petitioner could not explain the delay of nearly 2 ½ years for filing of additional written statement, as such, the court below has rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that, the 4 petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision being meritless. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. The application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 for filing additional written statement to bring certain facts vide I.A.No.552/2024 was dismissed on 17.03.2025 on the ground that the filing the said additional written statement would cause prejudice to the plaintiff and it falls under abuse of process of law and delay tactics. A perusal of the said order would further reveal that the reason given by the trial court for dismissal of the petition is that, the petitioner/defendant had took different plea in the additional written statement from that of the earlier written statement and that, he took nearly 2 ½ years to file the additional written statement, now sought to be received. 8. It is well settled that, inconsistent pleas can be raised by the defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. In M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd & Anr Vs M/s Ladha Ram & Co.1, the Apex Court has clearly said that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. In view of the same, the trial court cannot say that the defendant is not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence. 1 (1976) 4 SCC 320 5 9. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that "rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, not its mistress". This principle means that procedural technicalities, including rules regarding limitation and delay, should not come in the way of doing substantial justice. Therefore, the other ground of delay raised by the trail court for dismissal is also over ruled by compensating the same by imposing costs. 10. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that, dismissal of the application, filed for filing additional written statement, by the court below on the above said grounds is erroneous and untenable and further no prejudice will caused if the said application is allowed. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17.03.2025 in I.A.No.552 of 2024 in O.S.No.21/2022 is hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents and consequently, I.A.No.552 of 2024 in O.S.No.21/2022 is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS