JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant is the Petitioner in this Civil Revision u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the order of the trial court refusing her prayer for amendment of the written statement. 2. The suit filed on 11-2-1981 is for specific performance of the contract for sale dated 16-2-1978. It was asserted that the Defendant is the exclusive owner of the suit property and in that capacity she entered into the contract. In the written statement filed on 25-1-1982 Defendant admitted the plaint assertion that she is the exclusive owner of the suit house situated in Cuttack town and stated that she is in possession of the house along with his sons and other family members. The suit was contested on the ground of absence of any contract for sale. After the issues were settled and before hearing, Defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement challenging the validity of the contract on the various provisions of the Contract Act. Hearing commenced on 22-4-1985 with examination of the Plaintiff as P.W. 1. The evidence on the side of the Plaintiff was closed on 17-7-1985 and the suit was posted for recording evidence on behalf of the Defendant. On 30th July, 1985, Defendant was examined as D.W. 1. In her examination in chief, she stated ...The house in which now I am staying belongs to my husband. After the death of my husband, the properties belong to me, 3 of my sons and 5 of my daughters. In view of this statement, Plaintiff filed some document on 2-8-1985 with a prayer to direct the Defendant to admit the same. Defendant having objected to the same, the matter was heard and the Plaintiff was allowed to prove it. Requisites were filed by the Plaintiff to prove the register in the office of the Sub-Registrar wherefrom the certified copy was obtained. P.W. 6 proved the register on 13-8-1985 and the certified copy was marked as Ext. 13. 3. The certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the Defendant being marked as Ext. 13, the Defendant filed an application on 16-8-1985 for amendment of the written statement. She prayed to add four sub paragraphs to paragraph 5 as paragraphs 5(b) to 5(e). In paragraph 5(b) it was proposed to give the description of the land and that the Government of Orissa is a necessary party. 13, the Defendant filed an application on 16-8-1985 for amendment of the written statement. She prayed to add four sub paragraphs to paragraph 5 as paragraphs 5(b) to 5(e). In paragraph 5(b) it was proposed to give the description of the land and that the Government of Orissa is a necessary party. In paragraph 5(e) it was proposed to take a ground that suit is incompetent in absence of necessary parties. In the proposed sub-paragraphs 5(c) and 5 (d), Defendant wanted to explain that she was only a benamidar and the real owner was her husband on whose death all the legal representatives have title to the property. This was objected to by the Plaintiff on the ground that the entire stand of the Defendant would completely change by this amendment. The objection having been found favour by the trial court, the dispute has moved to this Court in the present Civil Revision. 4. There is no doubt that in case this amendment is allowed, two inconsistent pleas will be available in the written statement. One plea would be that the Defendant is the exclusive owner of the property residing therein with her sons and other family members and the other would be that the property was purchased in her name benami by her husband in the year 1935 and on her husband's death all the legal heirs became the owners of the property. 5. So far as the nature of the property described in paragraph 5(b) and the effect of non-addition of necessary party in 5(e), the amendment is not required to be allowed as the document Ext. 13 would disclose the nature of the property and Plaintiff having the nature of property in Ext. 13, the legal consequences of the same can be examined by the Court on the basis of the facts available. Therefore, prayer for amendment of the written statement by adding 5(b) and See) have been rightly rejected. 6. So far as the prayer for adding the fact that the property was purchased benami in the name of the Defendant, Mr. 13, the legal consequences of the same can be examined by the Court on the basis of the facts available. Therefore, prayer for amendment of the written statement by adding 5(b) and See) have been rightly rejected. 6. So far as the prayer for adding the fact that the property was purchased benami in the name of the Defendant, Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Defendant, Petitioner submitted that the trial court exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in not keeping in mind the principle that amendment to pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the suit even appeal as the broad language of Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, indicate and while considering the question of amendment of written statement, courts are to take a more liberal view that in the case of amendment of the plaint. According to Mr. Mohanty the entire purpose of amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, is to bring out the correct facts for the purpose of proper adjudication of the real dispute to leave no scope for the litigation be continue indefinitely. Mr. Mishra on the other hand while not disputing the broad principle submitted that the conduct of the Defendant is to be kept in view since no court would assist a party who is guilty of laches. According to Mr. Mishra, all the decisions while considering the question of laches considered the written statement as originally filed and the effect of amendment. Where a valuable right of the Plaintiff is taken away, the amendment is to be refused. 7. The only decision of this Court refusing amendment of the written sratemenr cited before me is reported in Bhaskar Chandra Behera and Others Vs. Ranital Rice Mill Co. and Others. The two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Misra are reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., and in Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Others Vs. Mohamad Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co.. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty has relied upon a series of decisions of this Court beginning from 1966 till date. He relied upon a decision in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, . 8. Ladha Ram and Co., and in Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed and Others Vs. Mohamad Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co.. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty has relied upon a series of decisions of this Court beginning from 1966 till date. He relied upon a decision in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, . 8. There can be no quarrel over the proposition that amendment of the written statement is to be liberally considered taking note of the conduct of the Defendant and the prejudice to the Bhaskar Chandra Behera and Others Vs. Ranital Rice Mill Co. and Others this Court considered the conduct of the Defendant and coming to the conclusion that by substitution of genealogy and addition of paragraphs, the entire defence of Defendant would change and refused the prayer for amendment of the written statement. While examining the conduct of the Defendant absence of the real cause for amendment was given weight with other factors. However, absence of assertion in the petition for amendment cannot be the sole basis for refusal of the prayer. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, at page-1270, it was observed. ...The observations made by the High Court that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be granted, because there was no averment therein that the misdescription was on account of a bona fide mistake, and on that account the suit must fail, cannot be accepted. In our view, there is no rule that unless in an application for amendment of the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or misdescription is due to bona fide mistake, the Court has no power to grant leave to amend the plaint. The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. 9. Petitioner is an ill-treat and old lady. In her deposition, she stated to a suggestion in the cross-examination- It is not a fact that the written statement has been scribed as per my instruction and I have put my thumb impression. The description of the land in the written statement is wholly wrong as is revealed in the certified copy of sale dead Ext. In her deposition, she stated to a suggestion in the cross-examination- It is not a fact that the written statement has been scribed as per my instruction and I have put my thumb impression. The description of the land in the written statement is wholly wrong as is revealed in the certified copy of sale dead Ext. 13 which would indicate that the Defendant had no proper knowledge of the nature and character of the land. This is a case where the entire basis of defence in the written statement is not substituted. All her assertions continue and the new assertions are to be added. She only wants to explain Ext. 13, that the same is a benami transaction. As has been stated in the decision reported in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Motiram AIR 1978 S.C. 84. ...Defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent. Evenvery defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which may be payable, or of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordinarily refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings. This is not a case where the cause of action for the Plaintiff is completely changed. The admission of the Defendant that she is the exclusive owner, is not taken away. The effect of such admission is to be considered along with the other assertions. Plaintiff would no doubt be prejudiced by taking steps to adduce further evidence. In view of the amendment of the written statement, the Plaintiff may have to amend the plaint also. If the assertion of the Plaintiff to be in possession is correct, the only other point to be proved is the existence of a contract for sale and the validity thereof. This is not such a prejudice to reject the amendment of the written statement completely. Rather by the amendment the Court would be in a position to adjudicate upon the real dispute. Therefore, the prayer for amendment of the written statement for adding paragraph 5(c) and 5(b) to the written statement is to be allowed. This is not such a prejudice to reject the amendment of the written statement completely. Rather by the amendment the Court would be in a position to adjudicate upon the real dispute. Therefore, the prayer for amendment of the written statement for adding paragraph 5(c) and 5(b) to the written statement is to be allowed. The prejudice of Plaintiff can be mitigated in Case the Defendant pays a cost of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) to the Plaintiff within six weeks from today, failing which the Defendant shall not be permitted to amend the written statement and the trial shall continue with the original written statement. 10. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed