JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Defendants have approached this Court against an order refusing amendment of their written statement. The opposite parties brought the suit for declaration of their possessor title in respect of the suit property as also for permanent injunction against the Petitioners with the case that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Pratap Chandra Bhanja Deo and the Petitioners father late Ambika Charan Das had purchased the suit land from him. Ambika on 29-4-1960 proposed to sell the suit land to the Plaintiff-opposite parties and had received the entire consideration money therefor, but he having died on 31-5-1960, the sale deed could not be executed. The present Petitioners executed agreements on 30-10-1963, 29-10-1966, 31-10 -1969, 29-10-1972, and 24-10-1975 acknowledging their late father?s agreement with tile Plaintiff opposite parties which forms the basis of the suit. Besides, the Plaintiff opposite parties also claimed adverse possession in respect of the suit land. 2. The defence of the Petitioners in the written statement was denial of execution of any agreement by their late father in favour of the Plaintiff-opposite parties and the of aim of adverse possession was also refuted. In Para-6 of the written statement the Defendants took a further plea that the Plaintiffs are required to prove that late Ambika or the Petitioners either had or have any legal authority or power to transfer he suit land As regards the agreements, the defence was that the same were executed not for transfer of the suit land but only as a security for certain loans advanced by the Plaintiffs to the Petitioner?s family. Besides it was stated that the agreements were non-enforceable being barred by time. A further plea was also taken that the description of the land in the schedule to the plaint was vague and insufficient and that the suit land was undemarcated. 3. In the proposed amendment the Petitioners wanted to insert at the end of Sub-para-(2) of Para-7 of the written statement the following: On plaint averments late Ambika had acquitted no transferable right and as such neither he nor his sons could transfer or contract to transfer any right or right of possession therein. And at the end of Sub-para (5) of Para-7 they wanted to insert the following: The description of suit land is vague and wrong. And at the end of Sub-para (5) of Para-7 they wanted to insert the following: The description of suit land is vague and wrong. The correct boundaries are not given and Plaintiffs even want to grab public land. As the alleged transaction was in reality simple and security for loan there was no measurement or demarcation at any time and length of the suit place is much less than 300, and 18 gunths is not 300 X 55 and also there was no mention or pre-existing garage (Old) shed in alleged agreement. Both these amendments have been refused by the learned Subordinate Judge on twofold grounds, i.e. the proposed amendments take away the admission of the Defendants in the agreements that Ambika had agreed to sell the suit land arid that the prayer for amendments was barred u/s 32 of the Evidence Act. 4. So far as the first objection taken by the learned trill Court is concerned, it does not appear to be sustainable It is well-settled that the Defendants are entitled to even adopt inconsistent stands and that if at all they want to repudiate the agreements on some basis and to have the pleadings amended to that effect, there cannot be any objection to the same. As a matter of bet the very case of the Petitioners in their written statement has been that it was for the Plaintiff-opposite parties to prove that either Ambika or the Petitioners had any saleable right. By the proposed amendments all that is- intended to be done is to state that since no sale deed had been executed in favour of Ambika In respect of the suit land; he had not acquired any transferable right and hence neither he not his sons could transfer or contract for transferring any right or right of possession over the suit land. The amendment in no way changes the nature and character of the defence taken and is in reality only continuation of the stand already adopted in the written statement and is for better clarification of the came thus there cannot be any objection to the amendment being allowed. 5. So far as the amendment proposed to be made at the end of Sub-para (5) of para 7, there can hardly be any objection to the same. 5. So far as the amendment proposed to be made at the end of Sub-para (5) of para 7, there can hardly be any objection to the same. In para-6 of the written statement it has already been stated that the description of the land in the schedule to the plaint is vague and insufficient and the suit land is undemarcated in view of that, the proposed amendment is not way inconsistent and rather goes to show that the correct boundary of the suit land has not been given by the opposite parties and that the agreements executed were really securities for loans and that there was no measurement or demarcation d the suit land at any time The words in the proposed amendment and length of the suit place in much less than 300, and 14 gunths is not 300' X 55" and also there was no mention of pre-existing garage (old) shop in alleged agreements would not, as conceded by Mr. R.K. Mohanty appearing for the Petitioners make any sense; and he submits that a comma (,) has been left out after the figure 300'. On a reading of the same, the submissions appears to be reasonable and hence while permitting Mr. R.K. Mohanty to correct the amendment by putting a comma as desired, I fell that the amendments should also be allowed since they are in illustration of the stand already taken. 6. A further amendment has been sought for to be made in Sub-para-(3) of para 6 of the written statement by substituting the digit 2' for 3' and to insert certain words therein as mentioned in the petition for amendment. Absolutely no reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to why such amendment was refused. The amendment is formal in nature which ought to be allowed. 7. It is also not understood as to how a conclusion has been reached by the learned Subordinate Judge that the proposed amendments were barred u/s 32 of the Evidence Act Further such reason, the order impugned is not supportable. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The amendments prayed for are allowed. 7. It is also not understood as to how a conclusion has been reached by the learned Subordinate Judge that the proposed amendments were barred u/s 32 of the Evidence Act Further such reason, the order impugned is not supportable. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The amendments prayed for are allowed. Since the suit is of 1982 and for one reason or the other the same is being charged on it, is desirable, is submitted by the learned Counsel for both sides, that the same should be disposed of early The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to take steps to dispose of the suit by the end of December, 1988 under intimation to this Court. Final Result : Allowed