The court emphasized the permissibility of amending pleadings to substantiate pre-existing facts and the liberal approach in considering applications for amendment.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Ambur, aggrieved over the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by the said Court in allowing the application in I.A.No.65 of 2010 preferred by the respondents to amend the written statement, has come up with the present civil revision petition.

2. The respondents being defendants in the said suit, have filed an application in I.A.No.65 of 2010 for amendment of the written statement. The amendment that has been sought for by the respondents is only in respect of the boundaries set out in the written statement. The Court below found that the said amendment will not change the cause of action or the nature of the suit property and that it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present civil revision petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that in a mechanical way, the respondents herein have filed the said application for amendment in the written statement and the same should not have been allowed by the Court below. However, I am of the considered view that the amendment that has been sought for by the respondents does not alter the structure of the suit or does not change the cause of action.

4. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions viz.,

(i) (2008) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 85 – Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly.

(ii) (2001) 2 M.L.J. 52 – Tirupathi Nadar and others v. Pakiyalakshmi and other.

(iii) AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2832 – Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh.

(iv) 2010 (5) CTC 198 – S.Sathish v. Dr.Sumathi.

(v) AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 806 – Ajendraprasadji N.Pande & Anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors.

(A) In (2008) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 85, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the discretion of the Court in permitting amendment to pleadings has to be exercised judiciously. When once the defendant admitted certain statement in the written statement, the defendant cannot be permitted to amend the same to deny or dispute the plaintiff's claim. In the case on hand, the respondents seek to amend the written statement only in respect of the boundaries of the property and nothing more. Hence, the said judgment may not be of any use to the petitioner.

(B) In the decision reported in (2001) 2 M.L.J. 52, this Court found that a new cause of action was prayed for by way of amendment and hence, rejected the same. This judgment also may not be of any use to the petitioner.

(C) In AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2832, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that by way of amendment in the written statement, there is no withdrawal of the earlier admission made in the written statement and in such circumstances, the amendment in the written statement can be allowed. Even this judgment also may not be of any use to the petitioner.

(D) In the decision reported in 2010 (5) CTC 198, this Court has held that the defendant is entitled to take mutually inconsistent pleas, but cannot plead new case or take mutually destructive pleas. There cannot be any quarrel over the said proposition. However, as stated already, in the case on hand, the respondents herein are neither taking a new case nor they are altogether taking a new stand mutually destructive to the earlier statement. Hence, this judgment may not be of any use to the petitioner.

(E) The decision reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 806 is the case where the amendment that has been sought for is after the trial has commenced. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no grounds have been raised in the affidavit in support of the application to amend the written statement that in spite of diligence, the same could not be raised. However, in the case on hand, the application has been filed before commencement of the trial and that too, only to change the boundaries. Hence, this judgment also may not be of any use to the