P. Devadass, J.

1. This matter arises out of the order passed by learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dismissing I.A. No. 59 of 2015 in O.S. No. 460 of 2013. The said suit is for partition. Long back pleadings were completed. Now the suit has become part-heard. At this juncture, the 2nd defendant filed I.A. No. 59 of 2015 seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. It was opposed to by the plaintiff.

2. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that it is belated because it was filed after two years. Further, it is observed that although inconsistent plea can be set up, a plea in destruction of the earlier pleas cannot be permitted. Thus, the Trial Court refused to receive the additional written statement and dismissed the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a reading of the written statement and additional written statement would show that the 2nd defendant is not deviating from his earlier stand taken in the additional written statement. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiff during trial and after verification of revenue records, it has become necessary for the 2nd defendant to raise the additional pleadings. In such circumstances, delay shall not defeat his case being brought to the notice of the Court. Such leave cannot be denied on technical grounds. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners will found fault with the impugned order of the Trial Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the 2nd defendant came forward with a new plead and it would twist the course of the case and trial. He wants to completely erase his plea set up in the written statement and now he comes with fresh pleadings through his additional written statement.

5. The 2nd defendant also questioned the very existence of Item Nos. 2 to 6. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. Thus, he would say that the impugned order is not faulty.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited the following rulings:

i. Muthiah Mudaliar v. Dhandapani Mudaliar, 1986 (2) MLJ 403, and

ii. Devanbu v. Sundara Raj, [2008 (1) CTC 563].

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these rulings are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, the impugned order and also the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Pleadings can be amended at any time, but before pronouncing Judgment. Even it can be amended at the stage of appeal also, but that does not mean that the party can amend the pleadings when rights have been accrued to the other party in the course of trial, but that does not mean that they can do it with any secret-agenda, namely, to delay the trial. But, at the same time, in a leave petition filed for amendment of pleadings, cases should not be decided fully. There cannot be a trial, namely, in I.A., itself everything should not be decided. Cases should be decided on main path, but not on side paths. But, at the same time, under the guise of amendment of pleadings altogether a new plea cannot be allowed to set up. It would prejudice the other side. If such prejudice can be neutralized, it can be done. These are all age-old principles. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent also expound the principles, which have already stated in a concise form.

10. The suit is for partition of certain extent of properties, namely, Item Nos. 1 to 8. Plaintiff set out his case and sought the relief of partition. The 2nd defendant traced history in his own way with regard to 80 Cents and also speaks about certain partition taken within his family members and he set-forth a plea of partition already taken and no property is available for partition with regard to first item in Survey No. 571/3. In his written statement, he has also dwelt abou