“ 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I, however, find that in making these submissions the learned counsel appears to be oblivious of the provisions of Order 8, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, which provide that in a given case the Court may upon such terms as it think fit require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties. This rule invests the Court with the widest possible discretion and enables it to accept a written statement or rejoinder at any stage of the trial. It is no doubt true that no replication can be filed by the plaintiff to a written statement as a matter of right, but once it is so permitted to be filed it becomes part of the pleadings and in a case in which written statement raises a counter claim or a set-off is pleaded the plaintiff should normally be entitled to file a replication to the same. Similarly, in a case in which replication raises new pleas, which did not form part of the plaint, the defendant, to my mind, should be entitled to file an additional written statement or rejoinder to the same. It may be that in normal course the plaintiff cannot be allowed to raise a new plea in the replication yet if such a replication is allowed to become a part of the pleadings by the Court then, in all fairness, the defendant too should be provided
