JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. I.A. No. 5435 has been filed for condoning the delay of about two days in filing of this Civil Revision. For the reasons mentioned in his application the delay in filing this Civil Revision is condoned. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the Civil Revision. 4. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by part of the order dated 14.5.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Samastipur in Partition Suit No. 129 of 2004 whereby the amendment in written statement with regard to date of death of one Ahmad Issaq, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was husband of the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on so many occasions at different stages in different cases the defendants have given different date of death of Ahmad Issaq. The amendment has been sought to be made after three years of filing his written statement. The court below has allowed the amendment after imposing a cost of Rs. 750/-. While dealing with the matter it has taken notice that though the plaintiffs have stated in their rejoinder that the certificate produced by the defendant is forged and fabricated but has not been able to produce the correct one. It has further been observed that the hearing on the issue of the date of death of Ahmad Issaq has not been concluded and the parties will get sufficient opportunity to produce witnesses on their behalf. In this connection it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar Singh & Another (2006) VI SCC page 498 wherein the Supreme Court has held that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper and the courts, thus, should allow amendment of the pleadings unless a serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the either side. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has further held that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle and in case of amendment of written statement, the Courts should take more liberal approach in allowing it. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has further held that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle and in case of amendment of written statement, the Courts should take more liberal approach in allowing it. Even inconsistent or alternative pleas can be raised by the defendant in the written statement although the same, may not be permissible in the case of plaint. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in my opinion the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the part of the impugned order which is under challenge in this revision. 7. As a result, Civil Revision is dismissed.