The replication cannot be amended to set up a new and contradictory plea, and petitioners can only rebut assertions made in the written statement.

N.K.Agrawal, J.

1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiffs against the order dated January 8, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar whereby the plaintiffs application for amendment of their replication has been rejected.

2. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit for possession of land. The defendant-respondent No.l took a plea in his written statement that he had become the owner of the land by adverse possession. The defendant is the son of the real sister of the plaintiffs, Balbir Singh and Swaran Singh. Earlier, the defendants father used to cultivate the land and thereafter the defendant cultivated the land "Bawaja Rishtedari". It is now stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant is a licensee. Plaintiffs wanted to make an amendment in the replication to the effect that the defendants father and after him the defendant, was in possession of the land as licensee. The licence has since been revoked.

3. The trial Court did not find any reason to allow amendment of the replication.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that amendment of the replication was necessary so that a proper plea regarding the status of the defendant could be taken by the plaintiffs. It is pointed out that the plaintiff Balbir Singh is recorded as the owner in Jamabandi for 1989-90. The defendant had no right, title or interest in the land. The plaintiffs simply wanted to deny the plea raised by the defendant that he is in adverse possession of the land.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant has, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiffs have in their plaint alleged that the defendant is in illegal possession of land. That plea has been denied and it has been further asserted by the defendant that he is in adverse possession of the land. Once plaintiffs have taken a specific plea that the defendant is in illegal possession of the land, they cannot now take a plea that the defendant is in possession as a licencee and that the licence has been revoked. Plaintiffs are now trying to set up a new plea by amending the replication. They have filed a suit for possession on the ground that they are the owners of the land. They cannot be allowed to take a totally different and contradictory plea that the defendant is in permissive possession. They earlier took the plea that the defendant is in unlawful possession. It was, however, open to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint so that the defendant could also amend his written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in Duli Chand v. Shri Jagmander Dass, 1982(1) R.C.R. 591. It has been held that pleading means plaint or written statement. Replication is not a pleading.

7. This Court had also an occasion to examine a similar controversy in Chander Shekhar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) A.I.J. 59. It has been held that no new case can be permitted to be set up in the replication. The petitioners can be permitted only to rebut the assertions made in the written statement.

8. On a consideration of the matter, it is found that the plaintiffs have been rightly declined permission to set up a new plea by amendment of the replication. They had earlier stated that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit land. By amendment, they want to take a plea that the defendant was in permissive possession as a licensee. They are not only taking a new plea but also a contradictory plea. This is not permissible in law. The order of the Trial Court does not, therefore, need interference.

9. The revision petition, is therefore, dismissed. No costs.