Judgment : Heard Shri Markandeyawar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1 to 3. 1] Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] The petitioner challenges the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dated 9.2008 on Exhibit 65 in Civil Suit No.279/2001 between the parties. 3] The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction. In this suit when the matter was closed for final arguments, after closing evidence of both sides, plaintiff moved an application for seeking amendment to the plaint to incorporate a plea of perfection of title by way of adverse possession. Said application was rejected by the impugned order. 4] Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment reported in AIR 1996 Karnataka 55 [The Karnataka Wakf Board –vs- State of Karnataka and others], particularly in paragraph 22 which reads: “22-The plaintiff has taken up an alternative plea that it has perfected its title to the suit property by adverse possession. Also. In the appeal memo, in para 10 at page No.7, it is contended that the said plea is inconsistent with the plea of title under Issue No.1. it is not possible to accept this contention. It is well-settled that the plaintiff can take an alternative plea. The plea regarding title and the plea of adverse possession pleaded by the plaintiff in this case, cannot be said to be inconsistent with one another. The evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and also the clear and unequivocal admissions made by D.W. 1 in his evidence, as discussed above, to go show that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property right from the year 1928 and in 1941, the plaintiff granted the suit property in favour of the District Local Board and again in 1960, the plaintiff resumed the said property from the District Local Board and granted it to the District School Board under Ex.P3 and subsequently the Education Department constructed a building in the suit property in the year 1961 and the plaintiff has been in possession of it till date of suit. The suit has been filed on 112.1980. The suit has been filed on 112.1980. Since the defendants have been putting forward a claim to the suit property since ancient times, the possession of the plaintiff is necessarily hostile to the claim of title made by the defendants and is to their knowledge. The period of plaintiffs possession being well over the statutory period under Article 64 of the Limitation act, 1963, the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff has established its title to the suit property by adverse possession also. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the appreciation of evidence on record by the Trial Court is not proper. Hence, Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative. contended that the plaintiff could take alternative plea i.e. of perfecting the title by way of adverse possession as there was no embargo for such plea. This amendment should have been allowed by the learned trial Judge. It is also submitted that though the matter was closed for final argument, there was no final judgment delivered so his application should have been allowed. 5] Learned A.G.P. for the respondents submitted that it would be seen from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge was alive of the stage of the proceeding of the suit, when the said application was moved and he has observed that suit in question was filed on 21.2001 and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 17.2008, after closing of the evidence by the other side. In the latter part of the order, he has observed: “7- Now by this amendment he wants to add pleadings that he become the owner by adverse possession. The earlier plea and plea sought to be taken by the plaintiff, totally changes the nature of the suit. It cannot decide the real controversy between the parties, it is not the fact that after due diligence this facts were not mentioned by him in the earlier suit. But it is after evidence of both the side was closed. He had came out it can be definitely opined that, it will change the nature of suit, plaintiff cannot raise such plea as a matter was for final argument and judgment. But it is after evidence of both the side was closed. He had came out it can be definitely opined that, it will change the nature of suit, plaintiff cannot raise such plea as a matter was for final argument and judgment. Though he has sought benefit even after amendment or order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C. The plea raised by him is not in respect of deciding the real controversy between the parties, as originally pleaded by him. Hence, I do not find any merits in the application. 6] It is difficult to disagree with the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge. It is obvious that earlier the petitioner had raised a case that he was owner of the suit property. Later on he wanted to raise a case that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The suit is against the government. Petitioner could not have raised the issue, when the defendant had closed its side. It would be not correct to allow the said application for raising a plea of adverse possession at the fag end of the trial. It would definitely change the nature of the suit. Though the inconsistent plea can be available in pursuance of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that should have been done at the threshold of trial. The plaintiff had raised this contention at a very belated stage. 7] In this view of the matter, it is difficult to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court for setting aside the impugned order. The petition therefore dismissed. No orders as to cost.