Defendants are entitled to raise inconsistent or alternative pleas in the written statement, and the courts should be liberal in granting permission to amend the pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 22.01.2008 made in I.A.No.1310 of 2007 in O.S.No. 16 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupur allowing the application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC by the defendant to receive the additional written statement.

2. The case of the parties before the trial Court in brief is as follows:-

(a) According to the defendants the suit was for bare injunction. The plaintiff claimed title in respect of land comprised in S.F.No.131 and also passage right over. The defendants filed their written statement stating that they purchased 17491 ½ square feet of land comprised in S.F.No.131 of 3 of Neruperichal Village by virtue of sale deed dated 27.09.2000 from one Dhanalakshmi @ Danammal and they made improvement in the suit property. The plaintiff is not entitled to the extent mentioned in the suit schedule. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings had given a specific sub Division in No.131 of 6 in respect of the road and stated that extent was 13 ½ cents. The road was for common enjoyment. The plaintiffs could have purchased less than 50 cents. Therefore, it has become necessary for the defendants to file the additional written statement explaining the details.

.(b) According to the plaintiff, the said Dhanalakshmi owned 90 cents of land in S.No.131 of 3 out of which 17941 ½ cents had been sold to the defendants and the remaining 50 cents had been sold to the plaintiff and mutations were also effected. No doubt, the land in S.F.No.131 of 3 situate on the northern side of 30 feet road and the petition mentioned property is in the possession of the plaintiff. It is in correct to say that after formation of the road, the said Dhanammal possessed only 87 ½ cents and the road was laid on 13 ½ cents. The Additional Written Statement has been filed suppressing the real fact that 40 cents alone sold to the defendants and 50 cents were sold to the plaintiffs. In view of the inconsistent pleas in the written statement and the additional written statement, the character of the proceedings will be changed. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court after having heard both sides ordered reception of additional written statement by allowing the application filed by the defendants. Challenging the above said order of reception of additional written statement, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Heard both Mr. M. Rajasekaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court had wrongly permitted the defendants to file Additional Written Statement raising pleas contrary to the pleas taken in the original written statement, which is not permissible in law. He would further submit that the trial Court had failed to follow the proposition of law to the effect that if the new plea is altering the nature of the suit, such plea bearing Additional Written Statement cannot be entertained. He would also submit that the defendants have filed the petition for reception of Additional Written Statement after a long delay in order to prolong the proceedings and the trial Court had mistakenly understood the case put forth by the plaintiff that she had purchased only 87 ½ cents; whereas she had purchased 90 cents from her Vendor. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is required interference of this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would on the other hand contend that the trial Court had thoroughly discussed the matter and had rightly come to the conclusion that there was no plea taken in the Additional Written Statement contrary to the plea raised in the original written statement and as the suit was pending, it had permitted the defendants to file the Additional Written Statement. The contention raised by learned counsel a