Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2007 (Annex.5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh (Rajsamand) in Civil Suit No. 2/2004 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-petitioners. (2). Briefly put, the background facts and relevant aspect are that the plaintiff Kishan Singh (respondent No.2) and the defendant No.1 Laxman Singh (petitioner No.1) are bothers; the defendant No.2 Deepak (petitioner No.3) is the son of defendant No.1; and the defendant No.3 Smt.Kamla (petitioner No.2) is the wife of the defendant No.1. By way of the present suit, as filed on 01.05.2004 against the defendants Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff has sought perpetual injunction with the averments, inter alia, that a 30 x 45 plot of land as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint is of his ownership and has been in his possession ever since it was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 30.11.1975; that after leaving a way in between, towards eastern side of the aforesaid plot is situated another piece of land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint that was allotted to the father of the plaintiff by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 06.03.1963; and that father of the plaintiff had expired and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are in joint possession of the land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint having 1/2 share each. While alleging that the defendants attempted to forcibly raise construction on the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, entered into altercations, and threatened that they would take over possession of fathers plot too, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and further be restrained from raising construction or interfering with joint possession of the plaintiff on the property described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. (3). Perusal of the record makes out that the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction with the said suit; and on 04.05.2004, while the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (present petitioner Nos. (3). Perusal of the record makes out that the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction with the said suit; and on 04.05.2004, while the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (present petitioner Nos. 1 and 3) put in appearance and filed their reply, the present petitioner No.2 Smt.Kamla moved an application for being impleaded a party to the proceedings with the submissions that the land in question as described in paragraph 2 of the application for temporary injunction (i.e., the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint) is of her exclusive ownership and possession having been gifted by her husband Laxman Singh (defendant No.1); and earlier the land was purchased by her husband from Harendra Singh son of Kushal Singh Rajput for a consideration of Rs. 271/- and had been in his possession for about 39 years. The applicant claimed herself to be a necessary party having direct interest as owner of the property in question. The application as moved by the petitioner No.2 was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 21.05.2004 and she was ordered to be joined as defendant No.3 in the suit and as non-applicant No.3 in the application for temporary injunction. It is borne out from the record that the application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 03.06.2004; and the defendants have been restrained from interfering with the land in question. (4). In the suit proceedings, the defendants-petitioners filed their joint written statement on 03.08.2004 and while stating that the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was of 40 x 60 size and not 30 x 45 as alleged by the plaintiff, and while alleging that the neighbours have encroached over major portion of the land described in paragraph 2 of the plaint, and while denying the right of the plaintiff to get any injunction issued, the defendants-petitioners proceeded to make additional submissions and raised objections to the effect that the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was of the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 and had been in their possession for 45 years. While elaborating on the aspect of title, the defendants asserted that the said land was purchased by the defendant No. 1 from Harendra Singh for Rs. 271/- on Vaishakh Sudi 3, Svt. 2019; and that the said vendor had executed and handed over a document to the defendant No.1. While elaborating on the aspect of title, the defendants asserted that the said land was purchased by the defendant No. 1 from Harendra Singh for Rs. 271/- on Vaishakh Sudi 3, Svt. 2019; and that the said vendor had executed and handed over a document to the defendant No.1. The defendants further asserted that in the AD Year 2002, the defendant No.1 made a gift of the suit property to his wife (defendant No.3); and further that the defendant No.3 as an owner has obtained its patta from Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 03.07.2002 after depositing an amount of Rs. 200/-. (5). It may be pointed out that in this suit, before filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiff filed several documents on 28.07.2004, which include (i) a certification dated 11.06.2004 from Gram Panchayat, Lasani (at page C- 18/3 to C-18/5 of the record) to the effect that no such patta was issued to the defendant No.3, that the alleged resolutions were not of issuance of any patta to the defendant No.3, that no such amount of Rs.200/- was found deposited with the Panchayat, and that no copy of the alleged patta was available on record; (ii) an affidavit from the Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat at the relevant time that no such patta in favour of the defendant No. 3 was issued under his signatures (at page C 18/6); and (iii) an affidavit from the said Shri Harendra Singh that he did not sell any such land to the defendant No.1 (at page C 18/7). (6). On 23.05.2006, when the matter was posted for framing of issues, the defendants-petitioners filed the application for amendment in the written statement and made the submissions that a patta of the land in question was issued in the name of defendant No.1 by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 09.08.1975 that could not be traced earlier despite all efforts. (6). On 23.05.2006, when the matter was posted for framing of issues, the defendants-petitioners filed the application for amendment in the written statement and made the submissions that a patta of the land in question was issued in the name of defendant No.1 by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 09.08.1975 that could not be traced earlier despite all efforts. While seeking to delete the averments as taken in the written statement that size of the plot in question was 45 x 60 and not 30 x 45; and while seeking to retain other averments in paragraphs 2 to 9 of the written statement, the petitioners submitted that they wish to delete entire of the paragraphs 1 to 7 of the additional submissions and to substitute the same with the averments that Gram Panchayat, Lasani had issued patta of the land in question in favour of the defendant No.1 on 09.08.1975 and, therefore, the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff on 30.11.1975 was void and ineffective; and further that the defendant No.1 got possession of the land in question after making payment of Rs. 271/- to the erstwhile Jagirdar Harendra Singh in Svt. Year 2019; and considering it essential, the defendant No.1 did obtain patta from Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 09.08.1975; and for such patta being not traceable, another patta was obtained from Gram Panchayat, Lasani in the name of defendant No.3, that was a mere formality. (7). The learned Trial Court has rejected the said application for amendment by its impugned order dated 06.01.2007 with the observations that nowhere has it been indicated in the original written statement that any patta was issued to the defendant No.1 by Gram Panchayat, Lasani and that such a patta was not traceable despite efforts. The learned Trial Court has observed that permitting such amendment on the basis of the assertion that the alleged patta has now been found would be altering the entire scope of the suit and to create complications in just decision of the matter. Aggrieved by rejection of their application for amendment, the defendants have preferred this writ petition. (8). Assailing the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2007, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners has strenuously contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the principles of law applicable to the prayer for amendment of the written statement and has rejected the application for amendment without any reason or justification. (8). Assailing the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2007, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners has strenuously contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the principles of law applicable to the prayer for amendment of the written statement and has rejected the application for amendment without any reason or justification. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Akshaya Restaurant Vs. P. Anjanappa & Anr.: 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 303, Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr.: JT 2006(7) SC 139 = (2006(4) RLW 3360 (SC), Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors.: (2007) 5 SCC 602 = (2007(3) RLW 2583 (SC), and Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors.: (2007) 6 SCC 167 to submit that the amendment of the written statement is considered from a very liberal stand point; that introduction of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering the defence even while taking inconsistent pleas can be allowed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the present case, the petitioners are seeking to project on record the facts as are available with them and the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not contrary to the stand in the original written statement whereby the defendants have denied the ownership claim of the plaintiff and have asserted their ownership rights over the land in question; and even if related to some additional facts, the petitioners are not precluded from taking such pleadings. Learned counsel submitted that the application for amendment was moved even before framing of the issues and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment ought to have been allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the amendment as sought for in the present case is not merely of taking inconsistent pleas but is that of substituting the entire defence at its roots and such application cannot be said to be bona fide, particularly when the alleged patta of the defendant No.1 is not even indicated in the written statement. (9). Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record of the case, this Court is clearly of the view that in the present case, the prayer for amendment cannot be said to be bona fide at all; and the order impugned calls for no interference. (10). (9). Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record of the case, this Court is clearly of the view that in the present case, the prayer for amendment cannot be said to be bona fide at all; and the order impugned calls for no interference. (10). The principles remain settled with consistent precedents, including those cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the amendment of written statement is considered rather liberally; that it is permissible in law to amend a written statement in order to take an additional ground of defence, or in a given case even in order to explain the admission in the existing pleadings; and that taking of an inconsistent plea by way of amendment is not impermissible. At the same time, however, it remains fundamental that such a prayer for amendment could be granted when made bona fide and when not causing serious injustice to the other side. In the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to point out,- It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one. (11). The position obtainable in the present case is that the plaintiff sought injunction only against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners Nos. 1 and 3) but the present petitioner No.2 intruded into the litigation with the claim of the land in question having been purchased by her husband (petitioner No.1) and having been gifted to her and thereafter, herself having obtained patta from Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 25.07.2002. Not a word was stated by her in the application that could even be indicative of existence of any patta in favour of the petitioner No.1; and the said applicant joined the defendants, who had earlier filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction suggesting that the land was given in gift to her but without any suggestion about the alleged misplaced patta of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No.2, who became non applicant No.3 in the temporary injunction application, suggested in the reply that the land was purchased by her husband from Harendra Singh and then was gifted to her on 03.06.2002 and she was issued patta by Gram Panchayat on 25.07.2002 on the basis of old possession. In the said reply to the temporary injunction application, the non- applicant No. 3 asserted that the patta referred by the plaintiff was false and fabricated; and further asserted that Gram Panchayat had no authority to issue any patta to the plaintiff because the land belonged to Harendra Singh. (12). In the suit proceedings, even before the defendants had filed written statement, the plaintiff did file documents prima facie putting question marks over the claim of alleged patta in favour of the defendant No.3 and of alleged sale by Harendra Singh to the defendant No.1. (12). In the suit proceedings, even before the defendants had filed written statement, the plaintiff did file documents prima facie putting question marks over the claim of alleged patta in favour of the defendant No.3 and of alleged sale by Harendra Singh to the defendant No.1. The defendants-petitioners filed their joint written statement on 03.08.2004 and the relevant paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 in the additional pleas could be usefully reproduced as under: ^^2- ;g fd bl ekeys dk okn i= dh dye la- 1 ls lacaf/kr Hkw[k.M tks izfroknh la- 1 us Jh gjsUnz flag th firk dqkky flag th pwaMkor fuoklh ylkuh rglhy nsox< ls tks fd muds LokfeRo o dCts dk Fkk ftuls :i;s 271@& nks lkS bZxksrj esa feyh oSkk[k lqn 3 laor 2019 dks [kjhn dj o mUgsa ;g cSpko Hkw [kaM dh jkfk nsdj bl Hkw [kaM dk dCtk muls ekSds ij fQthdy :i ls fy;k gSA rFkk bldk fy[kre mUgksaus izfroknh ds gd esa fy[kk dj muds gLrk{kj dj izfroknh la- 1 dks fn;k gSA rc ls bl fookfnr Hkw [kaM ij dCtk o LokfeRo izfroknh la- 1 dk yxkrkj djhc pekfyl lky ls fujUrj o fufXu :i ls pyk vk;k gSA o lu~ 2002 esa izfroknh la- 1 us izfroknh;k la- 3 dks tks izfroknh la- 1 dh ifRu gS mlds uke bl fookfnr Hkw [kaM dks c{khl esa ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk esa fn;k gSA ij ge nksuksa vkil esa ifr-ifRu gS ftlls bl Hkw [kaM ds Lokeh ge nksuksa gh gS vkSj nksuksa dk bl ij LokfeRo dCtk pyk v;k gSA bl izdkj okn i= dh dye la- 1 dk Hkw [kaM fookfnr tks izfroknh la- 1 rFkk 3 dk gS vkSj [kjhn ls vc rd bldk mi;ksx o miHkksx fujarj :i ls izfroknh la- 1 rFkk 3 djrs pys vk;s gSA 4- ;g fd oknh ds uke dk fookfnr Hkw [kaM okn dh dye la- 1 dk tks iV~Vk xzke iapk;r ylkuh dk crk;k x;k gSA oks QthZ gS mls ogka ls dksbZ iV~Vk ugha fn;k x;k gS vkSj fdlh rjg oknh tks mls lkchr Hkh dj ns rks O;FkZ gksdj izHkkoghu gSA D;ksafd bl fookfnr Hkw [kaM dh txg tks O;fDrxr LokfeRo o dCts dh mDr of.kZr gjsUnz flag th pwaMkor fu- ylkuh dh FkhA 5- ;g fd fookfnr Hkw [kaM dk iV~Vk crkSj LokfeRo ds fu;r jkfk nks lkS :- tek djk dj fn- 3-7-2002 dks izfrokfn;k la- 3 ds uke ij xzke iapk;r ylkuh ls izkIr fd;k x;k gSA** It is noteworthy that in paragraph 1 of the written statement, the defendants consciously stated: ^^fookfnr Hkw [kaM Hkh 30x45 QhV dh uIrh dk u gksdj 40x60 QhV uIrh dk gSA** (14). Now the defendants would suggest that by way of amendment, the aforesaid line in paragraph 1 of the written statement would be deleted and then, entire of the additional pleas would also be deleted and instead, they would take pleadings that on 09.08.1975, the defendant No. 1 obtained a patta from Gram Panchayat Lasani; and for the said patta being not traceable, another patta was obtained in the name of defendant No.3 only as a formality. The suggested pleadings in the application for amendment read as under: ^^1- fd bl ekeys dk nkos dh dkWye la[;k ,d dk Hkw[k.M tks izfr- la[;k ,d dks xzke iapk;r ylkuh rglhy nsox< ls fnukad 9-8-76 bZLoh dks iV~Vs ls fn;k x;k gS vkSj iV~Vs dh mDr fnukad ls vkt fnu rd izfroknh la[;k ,d bldk ekfyd oks dkfct pyk vk;k gSA izfroknh la[;k nks mldk iq= gS o izfroknh;k la[;k rhu mldh ifRu gS vkSj la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj gksus ls dCtk rhuksa izfroknhx.k dk gS o izfroknhx.k bl fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk viuh bPNkuqlkj mi;ksx miHkksx djrs pys vk;s gS oSls bl ekeys esa Hkw[k.M ij izfroknhx.k la[;k ,d dk dCtk lEor~ 2019 ls gh pyk vk;k gS] ftldk bl tokc nkos esa foks"k mtj o tokc esa vkxs fooj.k nkkZ;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd bl ekeys ds nkos dh dkWye la[;k ,d dk Hkw[k.M ftldk iV~Vk xzke iapk;r ylkuh ls izfroknh la[;k ,d dks fnukad 9-8-75 dks fn;k x;k gS o bl iV~Vs dh fnukad ls izfroknh la[;k ,d iV~Vs ds fygkt ls dkfct pyk vk;k gS tcfd oknh dks mDr xzke iapk;r ylkuh ls nks ekg 21 fnu ckn fnukad 30-11-75 dks bl Hkw[k.M dk Mcy iV~Vk fn;k x;k gSA tks le; dh n`f"V ls okn dk gksus ls dkuwuh n`f"V ls izfr- la- ,d ds iV~Vs ds eqdkcys bldk dksbZ egRo o gd ugha gksdj oks iV~Vk vius-vki esa oksbZM gS ;kuh fu"izHkkoh gS o oknh dk bl Hkw[k.M esa u rks dHkh Hkh dksbZ rjg dk vf/kdkj o dCtk jgk gS vkSj u gSA 3- ;g fd iwoZ tkxhjnkj ylkuh gjsUnzflagth pq.Mkor fu- ylkuh dks izfroknh la[;k ,d us 271@& :i;s bl ekeys ds fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds lEor 2019 ds oSkk[k lqn rht dks fn;s Fks o dCtk bl Hkw[k.M dk izfroknh la[;k ,d us muls fy;k Fkk] ijUrq xzke iapk;r ylkuh dk iV~Vk t:jh leÖk fnukad 9-8-1975 dks bl fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk ogka ls izfroknh la[;k ,d us fy;k gS o izfroknh la[;k ,d ds uke dk iV~Vk u fey ikus ls izfroknh la[;k rhu ds uke dk Hkh iV~Vk xzke iapk;r ylkuh ls fy;k x;k gS tks vkSipkfjdrk gSA** (15). A comparison of the suggested pleadings with the existing pleadings and then a comprehension of the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to find the prayer for amendment being not bona fide. A comparison of the suggested pleadings with the existing pleadings and then a comprehension of the surrounding circumstances is sufficient to find the prayer for amendment being not bona fide. Right from beginning of this litigation, the defendants were aware of the case they were meeting with and the case they were setting up. Any suggestion about the defendant No.1 having any patta from Gram Panchayat or having made any efforts for obtaining any such patta is not even remotely indicated anywhere in the elaborate pleadings taken by the defendants in relation to the question of title to the property in question. On the contrary, as noticed above, the specific assertion in reply to the temporary injunction application and even in the written statement had been that the land being of ownership and possession of Harendra Singh, Gram Panchayat could not have issued any patta to the plaintiff. The suggestion as made in the application for amendment, of having found upon search the patta of the defendant No. 1 allegedly issued about two months before the patta referred by the plaintiff, does not inspire confidence, particularly in the backdrop of the stand otherwise taken by the defendants. (16). Apart that such aspect of any patta existing in favour of the defendant No. 1 is not indicated in the pleadings, noticeable it is that the defendants have relied upon a socalled gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 on 03.06.2002, (a photostat whereof is at page C-17/2 of the record of the attached Civil Misc. Case No. 1/2004). Leaving aside the question of evidentiary value of such an unregistered alleged gift document scribed on a ten rupees stamp paper that was issued for the purpose of affidavit; and leaving aside all other lacunae in the case of the defendants, the fact of the matter remains that any so-called misplaced patta of defendant No.1 is not stated even in such document whereby the defendant No.1 would purportedly gift the property to his wife. (17). Interestingly, the said document of alleged gift relates to a plot of land of 40 x 60 size; the plaintiff averred in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the land in question is of 30 x 45 size; and the defendants refuted such assertion of the plaintiff with the specific averment that the land in question is 40 x 60 size. Now taking a somersault, the defendants seek to omit such assertion in the written statement. Significantly, the defendants have yet suggested the pleadings by way of amendment that the land in question was purchased from Harendra Singh and then, feeling necessary, the defendant No. 1 obtained its patta from Gram Panchayat on 09.08.1975. However, the document allegedly executed by Harendra Singh (at page C-18/8) states about 40 x 60 land whereas the patta dated 09.08.1975 now sought to be introduced by the defendants (at page C-20/3) relates to the land measuring 30 x 45! Obviously, the stories as sought to be suggested by the petitioners are all shrouded in incongruities and uncertainties. (18). Though a litigant cannot be asked as to what stand he should take in his pleading; and even inconsistent pleadings are permissible but then, a litigant cannot be acceded the latitude to stuff the record with his vacillating and unsure theories and stories to the extent that it becomes impossible for the other side to find as to what case he is to meet; and it becomes difficult for the Court to even decipher the stand sought to be taken so as to take up fair trial of the suit. The pleading which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit are not countenanced; and are rather required to be struck out [vide Rule 16 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure]. On all the relevant principles relating to the pleadings, the prayer for amendment as made by the defendants-petitioners could only have been rejected. (19). It may further be pointed out that the defendants have placed yet another document on record (at page C-20/2 of the suit file), again executed on a ten rupees stamp paper issued for the purpose of affidavit on 24.03.2004, whereby the defendant No.3 would purportedly place the land in question in mortgage with her son-in-law Amar Singh. Again, leaving aside the probative value of such a strange document, noticeable it is that such a transaction is not stated in the written statement and it is not the case of the defendants that the land was in anybody elses possession. (20). Again, leaving aside the probative value of such a strange document, noticeable it is that such a transaction is not stated in the written statement and it is not the case of the defendants that the land was in anybody elses possession. (20). The present one is not a case of merely taking some inconsistent pleadings or addition of a new grounds of defence or stating some explanation to the existing pleadings but an overall comprehension of the material on record makes it clear that the defendants-petitioners have been making all efforts to build up different but incompatible aspects of defence and in that exercise have placed on record several doubtful documents. Without commenting on value and worth of such documents produced by the defendants, suffice is to notice for the present purpose that the story now suggested, of a patta having been issued in the year 1975 in favour of the defendant No.1 couple of months before issuance of patta in favour of the plaintiff, does not inspire confidence particularly because such patta in favour of the defendant No. 1 has otherwise never been suggested in the pleadings or in the documents, as noticed above; and because the story now suggested stands at loggerheads with the case earlier set up by the defendants. (21). Having examined the record in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the defendants are not forthright in stating their case before the Court and in the overall fact situation, the amendment as prayed for does not appear bonafide and allowing the same would be causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff. There does not appear any illegality in the learned Trial Court refusing such a prayer for amendment. (22). On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, this Court is further of the view that the application for amendment as made by the petitioners ought to have been rejected with costs; and the error, if any, on the part of the learned Trial Court has been of not saddling the petitioners with costs. This writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed, of course, with costs. (23). The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,200/-.