Short Note : 1. Municipal Committee, Sihora, mutated defendant No. 2's name over a portion of the house bearing No. 3/2 Ward No. 3. The plaintiff, aggrieved by this order, filed the present suit challenging the jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee to do so. The plaintiff contended that he was the sole owner of the house and defendant No. 2's name was nominally mentioned in the sale-deed on the basis of which the defendant No. 2 had claimed mutation. 2. The plaintiff then sought to amend the plaint and said in the alternative that defendant No. 2 did advance a loan for purchase of the plot and construction of the house and was only entitled to get back the money. It was further said that in case the defendant No. 2 were held a joint purchaser, his share in the house would not exceed 1/3rd. 3. The trial Court has disallowed this amendment to be introduced. The plaintiff, therefore, has come up in revision. 4. In disallowing the amendment, the trial Court did not bear in mind the distinction between inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas and pleas in the alternative. In the present case by the amendment the plaintiff was not withdrawing any ad mission made but on the other hand was making certain admissions against his own interests and in favour of the defendant No. 2. One fails to set, why such an amendment should have been opposed by the other side. The authority of the Supreme Court in M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co. AIR 1977 SC 680 relied on by the non- petitioners did not apply to the present case. Revision allowed.