JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Balwinder Kaur wife of Swinder Singh had taken the policy of Insurance which was in operation during her life time. After her death Swinder Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 51,675 i.e. Rs. 5000/- (50,000 ?) as policy amount and Rs. 1675/- as bonus against Life Insurance Corporation of India-defendant now the petitioner. 2. The suit was contested by the petitioner by raising certain pleas that the plaintiff is estopped form filing the suit by his own act and conduct; that the insured committed suicide and died within a period of one year from the date of policy of insurance and that the suit for recovery is not maintainable against it. On merits also, it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of the amount in question because the defendant had already informed him vide letter dated October 11,1995, that Balwinder Kaur has committed suicide within a period of one year from the date of policy and, therefore, the policy has become null and void. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking amendment to written statement to the effect that the policy under this contract of insurance was issued under "Marriage Endowment/Educational Annuity Plan". The sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- was payable only on the stipulated date of maturity. It was payable only on the expiry of period selected by the proposer Balwinder Kaur that is after 15 years. The petitioner wants to take up this plea as an alternative plea. The amendment was declined, hence this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to set up a new plea in order to change the nature of the stand already taken by defendant which cannot be allowed. 5. After going through the record of this case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the proposed amendment has been sought in the shape of an alternative plea. The defendant had already raised a plea in the written statement that Balwinder Kaur had committed suicide within a period of one year from the date of issue of policy. The defendant had already raised a plea in the written statement that Balwinder Kaur had committed suicide within a period of one year from the date of issue of policy. Thus, by describing the nature of the policy that it was under "Marriage Endowment/Educational Annuity Plain", no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff because terms and conditions of the policy would not be changed and the same is liable to be interpreted at the time of framing of the issues. 6. In B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and Anr. JT 1999(10) SC 61, their Lordships held that "liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated by way of costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation." 7-8. In B.K.N. Pillais case (supra) it is also held as under:- "The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statement. The Courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not have subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the is/was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of fact should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings." 9. In the given case the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action rather an alternative plea is raised, which will not cause prejudice to the plaintiff. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs. Revision petition allowed.