JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - Defendant Gordhan Singh made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. FACTS : 2. Smt. Munni Devi wife of Mahipal Singh son of Kalu Singh filed suit for permanent injunction against Gordhan Singh son of Kalu Singh to the effect that he be restrained from interfering in her possession of land measuring 47 Kanals 14 Marlas = 954/7018 share of land measuring 350 Kanals 18 Marlas. Defendant Gordhan Singh contested her claim. It was denied that she was owner and in possession of the entire land in dispute. He, however, omitted to give the detailed facts as to how she was neither owner nor in possession of the entire land in dispute and in fact she was owner in possession of only an area of 3 Kanals 16 Marlas out of the land in dispute. With a view to incorporate the facts to show as to how she was not owner nor in possession of entire land in dispute but was owner in possession of only 3 Kanals 16 Marlas of land, he sought to amend his written statement. 3. Vide order dated 21.4.2000, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergardh dismissed this application. 4. Aggrieved from this order dated 21.4.2000 of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh, Gordhan Singh has come up in revision to this Court. 5. By way of amendment of the written statement, Gordhan Singh wanted to plead that there was one Sheotaj Singh who was grandfather of Mahipal Singh (husband of Smt. Munni Devi) and Gordhan Singh defendant. He was owner in possession of 1/2 share by virtue of Will dated 26.12.1984. He had given 3/4 share to the defendant and 1/4 share to the husband of the plaintiff and earlier vide Will dated 34.5.1984, he gave 3/4 share to the husband of the plaintiff and earlier vide Will dated 24.5.1973, said Sheotaj Singh had given 1/2 share to the husband of the plaintiff and 1/2 share to the defendant but Will dated 24.5.1973 was revoked and vide Will dated 26.5.1984, he gave 3/4 share to the defendant and 1/4 share to the husband of the plaintiff. Sheotaj Singh expired issueless. After his death, husband of the plaintiff got sanctioned mutation No. 2463 dated 1.4.1985 on the basis of Will dated 24.5.1973 illegally. Sheotaj Singh expired issueless. After his death, husband of the plaintiff got sanctioned mutation No. 2463 dated 1.4.1985 on the basis of Will dated 24.5.1973 illegally. It was further alleged in that application that Mahipal Singh suffered decree dated 29.8.1990 in favour of his wife Smt. Munni Devi illegally which has been challenged. 6. Smt. Munni Devi contested this application. It was pleaded that decree dated 29.8.1990 was passed legally and she was declared owner of 954/7018 share and the defendant wanted to challenge the said decree by way of proposed amendment which he could not do. It was further urged that Will dated 24.5.1973 was never revoked and the said Will was declared valid. 7. Proposed amendment should have been allowed as through the proposed amendment, the only thing which the defendant wanted to do was to make his case more clear, explicit and elaborated. Through the proposed amendment, he wanted to bring out the facts as to how he was saying that she was owner in possession of only 3 Kanals 16 Marlas out of the land in dispute. 8. Amendment of written statement stands on a different footing than amendment of the plaint. Law is more liberal in regard to amendment of written statement. Through the proposed amendment, the defendant was not changing his defence. He was sticking to his defence that she was owner of 3 Kanals 16 Marlas of land and not 954/7018 out of land measuring 350 Kanals 18 Marlas. Amendment of the written statement which does not involve any shifting from the line of defence originally taken, should be allowed. Even otherwise, the proposed amendment would enable the Court to appreciate in a better perspective the case of each party. So, this revision is allowed. Defendant is allowed to amend his written statement accordingly, on payment of Rs. 750/- as costs. Revision allowed.