Judgment :- The above civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur, dated 27.1.2005, made in I.A. No. 989 of 2004 in O.S. No. 117 of 2002, in and by which the learned District Munsif dismissed the said application filed for amendment in written statement and additional written state­ment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the peti­tioner as well as the respondent. 3. The respondent herein-plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 117 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif, Thuraiyur, praying for per­manent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property from one Sivapackiam Ammal, wife of Ponnusamy Pillai on 27.9.2001 by a registered sale deed and enjoying the property all along. By way of oral partition, Ponnusamy Pillai secured the said property and after his demise, his wife Sivapackiam Ammal enjoyed the property as his legal heir and from her the plaintiff pur­chased the same by the sale deed dated 27.9.2001. The petitioner herein, the defen­dant in the suit, filed a written statement dis­puting the claim of the plaintiff. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, the defendant has spe­cifically stated that she married one Ponnusamy Pillai in the Tamil month of "Thai", 1954 as his second wife and at the time of marriage she was aged about 19 years. In the same paragraph she has also stated that Ponnusamy Pillai married her elder sister Sivapackiam as his first wife and since there was no issue, the said Ponnusamy Pillai mar­ried her as his second wife in 1954. 4. Pending suit, the defendant filed an appli­cation in I.A. No. 989 of 2004 seeking for amendment of certain particulars furnished in the written statement and additional written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, it is stated that, by mistake, in the written statement it is mentioned that the sec­ond marriage was performed in 1954 instead of 1945 and likewise at the time of marriage, the de­fendant was about 18 years, but the same has been wrongly typed as 19 years. It is further stated that both the mistakes occurred due to ty­pographical error and the same have to be suitably amended. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein/plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit. It is further stated that both the mistakes occurred due to ty­pographical error and the same have to be suitably amended. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein/plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit. In the counter it is stated that there is no typing error as claimed, on the other hand, since the Tamil Nadu Hindu (Bigamy Pre­vention and Divorce) Act, 1949 came into force and in order to suit her convenience she has filed the application for amendment and therefore the same is not maintainable. The learned District Munsif, after considering the case of both the parties, in the light of the specific plea taken in the written statement and additional written statement and the inconsistent stand in the affi­davit of the defendant as well as in the affidavit of the counsel who is said to have drafted the written statement, dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision by the defendant. 5. The only point for consideration in this revision is whether the amendments sought for are permissible. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehe­mently contended that the advocate who drafted the written statement was old and sick at the relevant time and because of his old age and sickness the mistake had occurred in the written statement in describing the year of marriage of the defendant and her age. Ac-cording to him, unless the amendments are allowed, the interest of the defendant will be very much affected and on the other hand the plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application the only reason given by the peti­tioner-defendant is that due to typographical error the year of marriage and age of the defen­dant have been wrongly mentioned both in the written statement and additional written state­ment and there is no whisper about the sickness of the advocate who is said to have drafted the written statement and the additional written statement as argued before this Court. 8. I verified the affidavit of the peti­tioner-defendant filed in support of the appli­cation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the only reason stated seeking for amendment is the typo-graphical error in respect of the year of mar­riage and age of the defendant. 8. I verified the affidavit of the peti­tioner-defendant filed in support of the appli­cation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the only reason stated seeking for amendment is the typo-graphical error in respect of the year of mar­riage and age of the defendant. Though it is argued that the advocate who is said to have drafted the written statement has sworn to an affidavit stating that the mistake had occurred due to his old age and sickness, in view of the fact that it was not projected as the reason in the affidavit of the defendant, I am unable to ac­cept the said contention. 9. In addition to the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the re­spondent, the stand taken in the written state­ment as well as in the additional written statement is that the defendant's marriage with the said Ponnusamy Pillai as his second wife was in the year 1954 and at that time she was aged about 19 years and in view of the fact the Tamil Nadu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 was in force at that time, the state­ment made in the written statement and addi­tional written statement is beneficial to the stand taken by the respondent-plaintiff, the same cannot be easily wiped out by allowing the amendment application. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent very much relied on the decision of this Court in N. Srinivasan v. Muthammal 1998 (2) CTC 94 : (1998) 3 MLJ 466 and contended that the pre­sumption raised in favour of the plaintiff can-not be deprived by allowing the respondent to raise inconsistent, or alternative plea. It was a suit on a promissory note in which certain statutory presumptions arose in favour of the plaintiff. D.W.1 therein has claimed that he signed on an incomplete and unfilled promis­sory note and therefore, certain statutory pre­sumptions accrued in favour of the plaintiff. In comparison to the presumption which would arise under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is settled law that presumption arising under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instru­ments Act is statutory and mandatory in char­acter. After referring to the earlier decision of this Court reported in Subbiah v. Alagappan AIR 1962 Mad. In comparison to the presumption which would arise under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is settled law that presumption arising under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instru­ments Act is statutory and mandatory in char­acter. After referring to the earlier decision of this Court reported in Subbiah v. Alagappan AIR 1962 Mad. 218 : (1961) 2 MLJ 292, the learned Judge has concluded that being a suit on a promissory note, the defendant cannot be allowed to deprive the right of the plaintiff to avail the benefit of the statutory presumptions by pleading a conflicting stand in contradic­tion with the stand taken in the original written statement. 10. The said decision is applicable to the case on hand. As rightly pointed out, the amendment which was sought for in the written statement and additional written statement was of such a nature would displace the plaintiff's case and therefore it cannot be allowed. To put it clear, no such amendment to origi­nal/additional written statements, putting forth inconsistent or alternative plea which could displace the plaintiff's case and cause him irretrievable prejudice, can be allowed. As rightly pointed out, if the amendment sought for are ordered, undoubtedly it would deprive the plaintiff's benefit of statutory pre­sumption, which cannot be allowed. These as­pects have been correctly appreciated by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the applica­tion for amendment. 11. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any error or infirmity for interference. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. (MD) No. 2689 of 2005 is also dismissed. Civil revision petition dismissed.