Amendments to a written statement should not be allowed if they displace the plaintiff from his case and cause irretrievable prejudice.

1. THIS revisional application is by the defendant/petitioners and directed against Order No. 88 dated 4. 12. 97 passed in title Suit No. 76 of 1991 allowing the petition filed by the defendants for amendment of their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in part. The plaintiff/o. P. instituted the aforesaid suit in the 7th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore against the petitioners for declaration that the registered Deed of Gift executed by the Alongo Bate. Dhar on 12.6.85 in favour of the defendant No. 1 is forged and therefore void and is not binding upon the plaintiff and also for a decree for partition and separate possession in respect of l-/4th share of the plaintiff/o. P. in the suit property in preliminary and therefore in final form and for other consequential reliefs.

2. IT is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is the son and defendant no. 2 is the daughter of said Alongo Bala Dhar. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of the defendant No. 2 and accordingly son-in-law of said Alongo bala Dhar. The case made out in the plaint is that the suit property was purchased jointly by the defendant No. 1 and said Alongo Bala Dhar. On the death of the said Alongo Bala Dhar on 5.2.89 her half share in the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 being the son and the daughter respectively in equal shares. The defendant No. 1 openly denied any claim of the plaintiff in the suit property by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 12.6.85 executed by said Alongo bala Dhar in his favour in respect of her half share in the suit property. The plaintiff accordingly alleged that the said registered deed of gift is a forged and fradulent document and the defendant No. 1 did not acquire any interest in the property held in half share by said Alongo Bala Dhar by virtue of the deed of gift which again was not executed by said Alongo bala Dhar herself but by her husband as power of attorney holder for said Alongo Bala Dhar.

The defendant appeared in suit and filed their written statement. Joint purchase of the suit property by the defendant No. 1 and Alongo bala Dhar was not disputed. In paragraph 8 of the written statement it was denied that the plaintiff inherited a share in the suit property but at the same time statements were made as if the plaintiff was claiming a share in the suit property as an adopted son of said Alongo Bala Dhar and her husband. However, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said written statement the plaintiff was specifically described as the adopted son of alongo Bala Dhar and her husband, it may further be noted that in respect of the properties, other than in the suit, left by said Alongo Bala Dhar and her husband it was stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is the adopted son and therefore admitted that the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff inherited moiety shares in the said properties.

3. WITH these pleadings parties went to trial and plaintiff deposed in the suit. It appears that in his deposition he also asserted that he is the adopted son. In course of hearing of the suit the defendant sought for an amendment of the written statement by making application under order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. The amendments proposed which are relevant for the present revisional application are in respect of paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of the written statements In paragraph 8 of the written statement amendments were sought for by making addition of the statements that plaintiff is neither the son nor the adopted son of the said deceased Alongo Bala Dhar and accordingly the plaintiff did not inherit any share in the suit property. So far in respect of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the written statement the amendments were sought for In only deleting the words "adopted son" used against the plaintiff.

4. THE petition for amendment of the written statement was allowed except for the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the written statement which has been impugned in this revisi