Point of Law : Inconsistent pleas can be taken by the defendants without withdrawing wilful admission raised in the written statement.

JUDGMENT :

This Original Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.10.2021 in I.A.No.4/2021 in O.S. No.183/2017 pending before the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in the above case. Original plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the respondents.

3. Heard, Adv.B.Krishnamani appearing for the petitioner as well as Adv.Eldho Paul, appearing for the 1st respondent. Though notice served upon the 2nd respondent, nobody appeared or represented the 2nd respondent.

4. In this matter on 25.09.2021, the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.4/2021 to amend the written statement. In the affidavit in support of this petition, the petitioner raised contention that though in the written statement filed earlier, it was contended that the suit document produced by the plaintiff was not signed or executed by the 1st defendant, later enquiry revealed that he had given a signed blank stamp paper in favour of one Biju M.V, when he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/-from Biju M.V, who had been conducting the concern 'Techno Enterprises'. When the above liability was discharged, the above signed blank stamp papers were not returned though the above said Biju agreed to return the same later. The further contention was that by using the said signed stamp paper, the plaintiff falsely created a promissory note and filed the present suit.

5. The plaintiff opposed the said contention.

6. The court below adjudicated the amendment application on merits and finally dismissed the application as per Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge.

7. While assailing Ext.P5 order, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to convince this Court that defendant in a suit supposed to take inconsistent pleas and, therefore, the amendment sought for by the defendants by contending that the promissory note in dispute is one created in a signed blank stamp paper issued by the 1st defendant in favour of one Biju M.V, when he had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/-from the above said Biju, should have been allowed by the trial court.

8. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, plaintiff argued that the suit was filed in the year 2017 and the defendant filed written statement as early on 26.09.2017. In the written statement filed on 26.09.2017, the defendants raised contention that the promissory note produced by the plaintiff was not executed by the 1st defendant and the same was created after putting forged signature of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 08.10.2021, the present amendment application was filed on 25.09.2021 seeking amendment of the written statement by raising inconsistent pleas to the effect that the promissory note produced by the plaintiff was one created in the signed blank stamp paper issued by the 1st defendant in favour of one Biju M.V. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner wants to deviate from the wilful admission in the written statement earlier filed by substituting another defense by admitting the signature in the promissory note. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition holding that the defendants introduced a totally different case, taking a U turn, in deviation of the original written statement and, therefore, the amendments sought, cannot be allowed.

9. Order 8, Rule 9 CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.

10. It is true that Order 6 Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings and the intend behind amendment is nothing but to decide the real dispute between the parties. In the decision reported in [