JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the parties, the revision petition itself has finally been heard. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed an application of the defendant for amendment of the written statement seeking to add six paragraphs by way of additional pleas. The pleas sought to be raised by way of additional pleas were inter alia seeking to claim to be in adverse possession for last 16 years and to have become owner by adverse possession, the plaintiff suit is barred by time, under valuation of the suit, pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, misjoinder of the parties, causes of action and the patta claimed by the plaintiff to be not relatable to the suit property. The application was opposed inter alia on the ground that by the impugned order, the defendant seeks to withdraw the admission made in the written statement as originally filed as to the nature and time of his entering into the possession of the suit property. Suffice it to say that even by amendment, no part of the pleading taken in the original written statement are sought to be deleted. As such, even for the purpose of the judgment reported in 1998(1) SCC 278 Hiralal v. Kalyanmal cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that the defendant is withdrawing from admission. 3. The other contention is that the pleading sought to be added by way of amendment is inconsistent qua the pleading already taken in the original written statement. In the totality of the circumstances, I do not think it proper to make any comment as to whether the pleading sought to be taken by amendment is inconsistent qua the pleading already taken in the written statement or not. It is open to the plaintiff to take advantage of the inconsistency, if any, during the trial of the suit. 4. So far as other pleading taken by way of amendment are concerned, no substantial prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner, if that amendment is allowed. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is open to the plaintiff to take advantage of the inconsistency, if any, during the trial of the suit. 4. So far as other pleading taken by way of amendment are concerned, no substantial prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner, if that amendment is allowed. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff would be free to file an appropriate rejoinder to the pleadings taken by the defendant by way of written statement and the plaintiff may re-examine himself and may also lead necessary evidence on the pleadings taken by the amendment. In the, result, the revision petition is dismissed with the above directions and observations. 5. Before parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that the Record received from the learned trial court shows that it has not been maintained as required by the Rules. The papers are not in chronological dace which makes it very difficult for this Court to locate the paper. Though some papers of index are there on record but then, the papers on the file do not tally with the numbers. The learned Presiding Officer shall see that there are General Rules Civil for the above purposes and those Rules are required to be complied with.Revision Dismissed. *******