JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - In pursuance to the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by this Court adjourning the case sine-die, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) for taking up the case for hearing has been filed. Accordingly, the case is taken up for hearing and the learned counsel has been heard on merit. 2. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioners filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the written statement. The reason for dismissing the application as disclosed in the order passed by the Civil Judge is that diametrically opposed stand is sought to be projected by way of amendment in the written statement. 3. The facts necessary for deciding the issue raised in the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the suit land on the basis of agreement dated 14.5.1998 and also for execution of sale deed in his favour after receiving an amount of Rs. 68,000/-. In the alternative, a prayer was made for refund to the principal amount of Rs. 68,000/- plus Rs. 16,000/- interest from the date of agreement i.e. 14.5.1998. In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioners, the stand taken was that the agreement dated 14.5.1998 is forged and fictitious document and has been prepared by the plaintiff- respondents in connivance with the alleged witnesses as depicted in the agreement. In order to set up a new plea, an application under Order 6 rule 17-A of the Code has been filed by taking the stand that the alleged agreement was executed by Bhim Singh deceased the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-petitioners and the amount received in pursuance to the agreement was adjusted in another agreement to sell executed by Bhim Singh. The Civil Judge dismissed the application by observing that the plea sought to be taken up is diametrically opposed to the plea already set up in the written statement. He further observed that the plaintiff-respondent has already closed his evidence and defendant-petitioners have also examined two witnesses. The Civil Judge has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and another, 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 139. 4. He further observed that the plaintiff-respondent has already closed his evidence and defendant-petitioners have also examined two witnesses. The Civil Judge has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and another, 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 139. 4. I have heard Shri R.S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners and have perused and record with his assistance. 5. Shri Dhaliwal has argued that the law regarding the amendment is liberal and the plaintiff-respondent can be compensated by imposition of cost. 6. Having considered the argument raised by the learned counsel I am of the view that diametrically contradictory amendment cannot be allowed as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in B.K.N. Pillais case (supra). In such cases the prejudice caused to the other side cannot be compensated with cost. The proceeding in the suit would be completely established and a de novo trial would have to take place. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by Civil Judge warranting interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.