Amendment to the pleadings can be allowed to raise plea which is even contradictory or inconsistent, and inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement.

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has inadvertently filed the revision petition against the order dated 18.5.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu ( hereinafter referred to as “ The Trial Court”) whereby the application of the respondents seeking amendment of the written statement, has been allowed. He further submits that the order impugned is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such the revision petition filed by him, may be treated as petition under Section 104 of the J&K State Constitution.

2. After going through the contents of the revision petition, I found that sufficient foundation has been laid for invocation of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted and this petition is treated as petition under Section 104 of the J&K State Constitution. This, however, is without prejudice to right of respondents to claim that the order impugned is not amenable to be corrected in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 104 of the J&K State Constitution.

3. The petitioner claiming to be the owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 3 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 403 min( “2 kanals 8 marlas ) and Khasra No. 401 min ( 5 marlas ) situated at revenue village Chowadi, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Trial Court seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in any manner over the aforesaid plot of land on the basis of cause of action accrued to the petitioner on 29.9.2016 when the respondents collected the building material on the spot and started raising construction. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement. The respondents in paragraph No. 4 of the written statement pleaded that respondent No. 2 had raised the plinth for construction of wall over the plot of land comprised in Khasra No. 401 min. It was also claimed that the respondent No.2 and his brother were in occupation of land measuring 10 kanals 1 marla in the aforesaid khasra number. It appears that after filing written statement, respondents realized their mistake when Commission appointed by the Trial Court submitted its report after demarcation indicating therein that the respondents had raised construction of the plinth in Khasra No.403 min.

4. With a view to correct the mistake and set the record straight, the respondents filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission of the Trial Court to amend the written statement so as to plead that the respondents were in possession of property comprised in Khasra No. 401 and 403 min and sought the permission of the Trial Court to recast paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 of preliminary objections and paragraph No. 1 of the written statement.

5. The application filed by the respondents( defendants ) was resisted by the petitioner ( plaintiff ) inter alia on the ground that amendment sought by the respondents amounts to withdrawal of admission which cannot be permitted. It was pleaded that amendment sought by the respondents in written statement would not only change the complexion of defence but would introduce altogether different facts which are contradictory to the reply already filed by way of written statement. The matter was considered by the Trial Court and vide its order dated 18.5.2018, the application filed by the respondents was allowed and respondents were permitted to amend written statement by stating therein that they had raised construction of plinth over khasra No. 403 instead of Khasra No. 401 and accordingly the proposed amended written statement which was submitted to the Trial Court was taken on record. It is this order of the Trial Court which is assailed before this Court by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the order which may call for interference by this Court in